Talk:Sexual script theory

The stylistics

At the invitation of The Prokonsul, I had a look here. I see issues:

1. with the format of the lead (per Military sociology) and the lead 'graph; it might earn a {{context}} tag from me, in normal use.
2. with insufficient links out, which would put it on the Dead-end or Orphaned pages, & earn a {{deadend}} &/or {{orphaned}} tag. Test it at "What links here". (I confess, I don't know the criteria for "deadend", 'cause i've seen stubs tagged that would be nothing but linkfarms if more were added.)
3. with lack of footnotes (a perennial complaint on WP; it'd be tagged for "lacking inline citations")
4. with some of the psychobabble (but maybe that's me).

It's showing signs of a good page, but at a glance, it still needs a lot of work. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 19:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional review avenue

You may want to consider Wikipedia:Peer review to attract more reviewers.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Automatic review

You may find the below suggestions useful._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • are considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sexual script/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the Good article criteria and has therefore failed. Issues include:

• The article has a maintenance template at the top of the page; this shows that the article still has issues. The specific issue here is that there is not enough inline footnotes to clarify that all of the information in the article has a reference; several paragraphs go unreferenced, so it is unclear whether there are references available to verify the information.
• I don't recommend putting a numbered list directly in the lead.
• The lead should be a summary of the entire article rather than an introduction. Some of the information in the lead, including the numbered list, do not appear elsewhere in the article.
• Format the "Social Construction of Gender." reference according to WP:CITE/ES; that is, it requires at least a publisher and access date.

Please renominate the article once these issues have been addressed. Gary King (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Context presumed?

There is no indication here of the context of a particular society (e.g. the U.S.? Western societies in general?) but clearly some such context is presumed (e.g. in the statement about double standards). Should be clarified. - Jmabel | Talk 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Think like a reader

Further suggestion: the idea here isn't to show off that you know something. It is to convey information to a person who came here to learn about this. - Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

History

The article is very unclear on when this idea originated and how it may have evolved over time. It suggests (but doesn't say outright) that Gagnon & Simon, 1973 - very vaguely cited, by the way - is the origin of the term. Is it? - Jmabel | Talk 22:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue of the origin of the term seems to have been addressed, but could do with a reference & possibly moving out of the lead Alanthehat (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

End of assignment: summary

I want to thank all editors who have contributed to this article, either by editing it or by reviewing it and offering help on this talk page. While the article has fallen short of the Good Article criteria, it has progressed from a red link on requested articles list to solid C or even B class. The latest version edited by the students was this one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Active Voicing?

The intro mentions "active voicing." I have no idea what this is. Is it related to active voice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.35.58 (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I never got past the lead. Problems:

• A sexual script is defined as what leads up to sexual encounters in which are learned interactions.
  • What is this sentence trying (and abjectly failing) to say?

• The production of consensus through seamless torn-talking & collaborative talk
  • What in shiny blue thunder is seamless torn-talking? The bizarre juxtaposition of "seamless" and "torn" aside, if torn-talking is a meaningful term, it needs to be linked to a wiki page or at least defined.

• Active voicing
  • I'm sorry, what? If what you mean is "Express voicing of sexual desire", say that.

• In sexual script's link to sexual activity; sexuality, sexual norms, social construction and gender roles all play a part in what makes sexual script differ between males and females.
  • Objection. This sentence should be taken out and shot.

Generally, the lead reads like it was serially translated from English to Swahili, to Hindi, and back again to English -- by someone committed to clinical prudery on a Victorian scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.173.144 (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above entirely. The article assumes knowledge of jargon which most people do not have. I presume this is sociological language. Just one example. "Script" implies something written- for example a form of writing such as "Roman" or "Cyrillic" or "Linear B" or the text of a play or a speech. I can't tell from this article what the meaning is here. Spinney Hill (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this article is bad. That is why I tagged it as I did. This article seems to have had these problems for years; probably because this is kind of an obscure theory. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Way too many tags

This article is a pretty bad case of tag bombing, with many issues that are not clearly defined (e.g. "This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards."), not actually present (e.g. calling the page underlinked), or just plain duplicates (e.g. "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: It is written assuming that social constructionism is true; needs material on reception and criticism by other scholars and perspectives", plus the undue weight tag presumably referring to the same problem, plus another "This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards."). After reviewing them, I removed all but one tag about the social constructivism issue, since all others seemed inappropriate, duplicative, or not severe enough to warrant a tag. Wikipedia:Tag bombing suggests Consider applying only the most specific, helpful tags and Avoid vague and redundant tags. Spinney Hill reverted me, though. Can we work toward a consensus about what to do for this? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we'll be good if we do your undue weight with reason tag, but together with the more citations tag from 2009. Much of the lead material is not supported by the body, the first section is entirely unsourced, and the several following sections are badly undersourced. I think those two are needed at minimum. The article's layout/organization is confusing too, but I don't know how best to tag for that or if it's needed on top of the other issues. Any more than those two or three is unnecessary I believe. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: That sounds fine to me. Feel free to change it to that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Since Crossroads and I wrote our notes in August 2019 nothing has been done to the language to make it more understandable. I am not asking for dumbing down but merely that as a reasonably educated person who knows nothing about the subject I can be enlightened. Someone who knows something about the subject needs to tackle this. A start could be made with explaining what is meant by script..User:Piotrus may be on the right lines here, but so far as I can see this approach has never been part of the article.Spinney Hill (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Spinney Hill: There's clearly a lot of work to do for the page; it's a start-class article. But that's separate from the question of which tags are justified. We don't put a tag indicating every aspect of a page that doesn't live up to GA expectations. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I did add the tags a year ago, but I was a much less experienced editor back then; I now see the excessive tags as counterproductive. I think the 3 tags I have there now sum up the issues while still identifying them - needs more sources, lacks criticism from other perspectives, and needs reorganization. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"Simplification"

Despite my complaints and he complaints of others this artcle has remained unintelligable to the general reader. Other editors' changes have done very little to inprove it. To improve things I have been bold and I have imported a paragraph which appeared in a very early version (back to basics sometimes works) and made what I hope are intelligent guesses as to what a "script" and "leaned behaviour" means. Once this is in the article the rest of it becomes more intelligable but there is still work to be done. Experts please take it from here but please make improvements rather than make it more obscure. If my interpretation is wrong please improve the article rather than revert. Spinney Hill (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: COMM 500 Theory and Literature of Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pumpkiinss03 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dimsumyo, Jaybreeze123.

— Assignment last updated by Jaybreeze123 (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Added various sections and changed opening paragraph

Hello, I recently changed the opening paragraph and included history about sexual scripts. I also added a few separate sections, including mediated sexual scripts, men and pornography sexual scripts, sexual health scripts, and sexual scripts criticism. I also included Paul wright's 3am model section. I believe this sums up sexual scripts well. However, I believe there is room for change, if people would like to add or change it up at a later time. Perhaps a longer more thorough section on gender sexual scripts or a section about the current sexual scripts we see in Gen Z? Pumpkiinss03 (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe that at the start the theory needs to be stated in simpler language. Yes it is a technical theory but a simple statement introduces complex thought better than launching straight into complexities. When I say simple I mean something which I believe a reasonably educated person who is not an academic sexual theorist can understand. I have re-introduced a section you discarded which I think fits the bill. I have slotted it into your structure. It doesn't have a reference but it is drawn (with some difficulty) from the rest of the article, which I think is all that is required in a wikipedia lead.Spinney Hill (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Change it if you like but please keep it simple. I think the analogy with an actor acting in a play with a script s a good one.Spinney Hill (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC).

Wiki Education assignment: Small Group Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2024 and 9 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Halleparker, Lavin001, Kelseamg, Sbeno0021, Gavin022502 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lavin001, Matt Forrence, Declancohan, Arive060.

— Assignment last updated by Mollyabell1 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)