![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shannonf94, I made some tweaks to the article; they were bolding the title per MOS:BOLD, changing headings to lowercase per MOS:HEAD, fixing reference placement per WP:REFPUNCT, and reducing repeated links per WP:Overlinking. There is more WP:Overlinking reduction needed. Keep these Wikipedia rules in mind when editing articles. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi!
I have copy-edited the section on "Explanations". See the history for details, but I just changed the headings to sentence case form to conform with Wiki's guidelines.
Here are my peer-review comments for your heading "Hrdy's hypothesis":
nicolehyare ( talk) 16:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
You have made a great deal of progress with developing this new page, and it's coming along really well!
I have copy-edited the entire article just to improve grammar and some sentence phrasing, although this didn't take much! You can see the edit history for details.
Here are some feedback comments:
I hope this has been helpful - it's all minor changes really, and I think your article is exceptional otherwise. Well done, and keep pushing on with it! Psundr ( talk) 18:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I have done a few copyediting changes, but overall the article was really good, with barely anything to edit. I thought maybe you could extend a bit more on the human female extended sexuality? And also talk about the use of hormonal contraceptive and condoms? Those two things have most probably promoted women's extended sexuality more than anything, considerably decreasing the cost of becoming pregnant. And also maybe how does the contraceptive pill can affect women's sexuality in general, as when they are on the pill, they are constantly on "extended sexuality". Talking about the male assistance hypothesis, maybe as well, it is not the case as much anymore (in human females) as it was before, because women nowadays work, are more independent etc? Those are just some ideas for potential improvements, but really good contribution already! Hope this help :) Drey02 ( talk) 17:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
This article contains a lot of agenda-driven inaccuracies and cherry-picked claims from incel/red pill groups trying to push their rhetoric that women have sex with many men and then trick one man into raising the children. This is not supported by science and is blatantly misogynistic; it cannot be allowed on Wikipedia. I am removing some of the worst parts, particularly those statements that misleadingly present opinion as fact and do not offer sources. There are also several large portions that do nothing but repeat their favorite talking points from other sections of the article that I'll remove. I will also glance over some of the articles in the sources to determine the extent of the cherry-picking of theories, since most of the ones they have used are from the 1970s-1990s and not current.
I'll try my best to maintain cohesion but someone will need to come and smooth things out at some point, as well as add research from the last decade as there doesn't seem to be much beyond 2010 here. If this problem of brigading/agenda editing persists, this article and a few others that are affected should be locked/protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinervaELS ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shannonf94, I made some tweaks to the article; they were bolding the title per MOS:BOLD, changing headings to lowercase per MOS:HEAD, fixing reference placement per WP:REFPUNCT, and reducing repeated links per WP:Overlinking. There is more WP:Overlinking reduction needed. Keep these Wikipedia rules in mind when editing articles. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi!
I have copy-edited the section on "Explanations". See the history for details, but I just changed the headings to sentence case form to conform with Wiki's guidelines.
Here are my peer-review comments for your heading "Hrdy's hypothesis":
nicolehyare ( talk) 16:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
You have made a great deal of progress with developing this new page, and it's coming along really well!
I have copy-edited the entire article just to improve grammar and some sentence phrasing, although this didn't take much! You can see the edit history for details.
Here are some feedback comments:
I hope this has been helpful - it's all minor changes really, and I think your article is exceptional otherwise. Well done, and keep pushing on with it! Psundr ( talk) 18:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I have done a few copyediting changes, but overall the article was really good, with barely anything to edit. I thought maybe you could extend a bit more on the human female extended sexuality? And also talk about the use of hormonal contraceptive and condoms? Those two things have most probably promoted women's extended sexuality more than anything, considerably decreasing the cost of becoming pregnant. And also maybe how does the contraceptive pill can affect women's sexuality in general, as when they are on the pill, they are constantly on "extended sexuality". Talking about the male assistance hypothesis, maybe as well, it is not the case as much anymore (in human females) as it was before, because women nowadays work, are more independent etc? Those are just some ideas for potential improvements, but really good contribution already! Hope this help :) Drey02 ( talk) 17:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
This article contains a lot of agenda-driven inaccuracies and cherry-picked claims from incel/red pill groups trying to push their rhetoric that women have sex with many men and then trick one man into raising the children. This is not supported by science and is blatantly misogynistic; it cannot be allowed on Wikipedia. I am removing some of the worst parts, particularly those statements that misleadingly present opinion as fact and do not offer sources. There are also several large portions that do nothing but repeat their favorite talking points from other sections of the article that I'll remove. I will also glance over some of the articles in the sources to determine the extent of the cherry-picking of theories, since most of the ones they have used are from the 1970s-1990s and not current.
I'll try my best to maintain cohesion but someone will need to come and smooth things out at some point, as well as add research from the last decade as there doesn't seem to be much beyond 2010 here. If this problem of brigading/agenda editing persists, this article and a few others that are affected should be locked/protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinervaELS ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)