Some of the reviews were quite good. One, on Holocaust rescuers, was not so good. Here are two bits that stuck out:

This is poor thinking. An attitude like "some things are simply beyond the grasp of rationality" must be earned, not just asserted, in any given case. Moreover you seem to accept the rationalist notion of rationality at face value. On their view, values are taken as given and beyond rational critique, and rationality only concerns itself with the means to achieve these values. (This is not the only view they have on the matter but I think their thoughts on this front are confused.) As you correctly note elsewhere, the orthogonality thesis is incorrect. Don't, then, allow yourself to become a mysterianism about morality.

This stance is silly. It relies on a notion of freedom as sui generis agent causation, which can of course be easily dismissed. But nobody who believes in free will (other than Chisholm) believes in that. The statement "People respond to their environment according to their natures" amounts to "We are not gods capable of unbounded spontaneity, but are rather thrown into an already-existing world." Again, nobody denies this.

You have set up a contrast between the "sensation" of freedom and the truth of determinacy. This contrast is delusive. You should ask yourself, "How would it feel if it felt like we didn't have free will?".

Additionally, I found some of the formatting choices odd and unpleasant. I would rather not see I hyperlink, than see a crossed-out hyperlink leading to a blank page. You occasionally insert underscores before or after words. I have no idea what this signifies. Your footnotes overlap your map. But overall, well done.