Klinem
| This user is a student editor in High_Point_University/Rhetoric,_Identity,_and_Culture_(Spring_2018) . |
Welcome!
editHello, Klinem, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
edit
Great evaluation of the Wikipedia page for the Sex Positive Movement. You bring up great points on improving this page, and it is a great candidate for either course project.
A kitten for you!
edit
Great evaluation of the Wikipedia page for the Sex Positive Movement. You bring up great points on improving this page, and it is a great candidate for either course project.
Lyndsey's Peer Review
editThe very first thing I noticed about this page is the lack of citations, especially in the lead section. The first 2 sentences do not have citations though they include a lot of important information to the reader. For a lead section, the information seems relevant and provides a good overview, but perhaps may have too much detail for a “lead”; for example, the sentence about the original use of sex-positive may be better in the overview section, but I can also see how it might be a key detail to include because of how the term gained popularity, so I suppose this is up to the author on if this should be included.
I think the organization of the page overall makes sense and flows, but perhaps the overview section should come before the lexicology section because if one is looking to learn more about the movement, lexicology wouldn’t be the first point of information they may be looking for. So maybe switching these two sections would be more beneficial to the reader. Furthermore, the lexicology section only talks about Wilhelm Reich, but maybe there is more to the history of sex-positive than just him, so this may be something to look into to be sure that you’re providing the reader with all aspects. Once again, this section is lacking citations but includes a lot of good information so I’d be interested to see where this info came from and if it is being properly used (i.e. no plagiarism). The overview section does a better job of covering different perspectives and the history, but is extremely lacking of citations, making me question the legitimacy of some of the information. This section doesn’t seem to be advocating for either side, so that is a good basis to go off of; however, as I read in your sandbox regarding your thoughts on the article, I do think it would be a cool idea to include a different section highlighting the viewpoint of the opposition to this movement, because that would provide a reader with full insight on this movement and the thoughts surrounding it. Another thing of note in the overview section is that there are a lot of phrases/concepts that could be linked to other Wikipedia pages, so this might also be worth looking into to make the page even more credible.
In terms of content, I think this page is very strong. There clearly is a lot of background to this movement, and I think everything that is currently on the page is worthy of being there. I do not know a lot about this movement, but I’m sure that it continues to be a “hot topic” in today’s society based on the topic it discusses, so maybe it could be a page to continue to monitor and update in the future. I did notice one statement at the bottom of the page in the very last subheading “sex-positive feminism” that lists off authors who have advocated sex-positive feminism, including an author named Betty Dodson “who could be regarded as the grandmother of the movement.” Who regards her as the grandmother? Where does this information come from? This statement might not be necessary to include since it does seem biased and we don’t know who said it or where it comes from. Once again, there is a major issue with citations, but I believe this would be something that could be easily fixed to make this page much more credible. Good luck! Lyndseyclos (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Lyndsey