Draft talk:Functional periodicity

This is a good article and an important addition to Wikipedia psychology content. However, it suffers from poor grammar. For example, take the first three sentences: "Functional Periodicity was an idea of physical and mental impairment among women during the time of their menstrual cycle. Men held a higher opinion during this time period because society functioned in a male dominated atmosphere." Compare with the following rewrite: "Functional Periodicity was a term used during the late 19th and early 20th centuries for the belief that women were physically and mentally impaired during their menstrual cycles. Men were regarded as superior to women during this time period because society functioned in a male dominated atmosphere. Male psychologists promoted the idea of functional periodicity and confirmed that it was valid."

Since this is a new article, it has to be submitted and reviewed by Wikipedia editors. Doing a thorough job of proofreading for correct grammar and "encyclopedic" tone will greatly improve its chance of being accepted. For this reason, I am rating it '2' or not quite ready for publication. I don't think this will be too difficult, but you need to examine each sentence carefully. There are a lot of mistakes.

Some other things that need attention: The last part of Background and history section, on Hollingworth, is redundant with the next section. Also, the editors will not like the amount of detail in the sections describing her research. Again, easy fixes. Once more, the content is generally good. You just need to do some polishing to make this a fine article.J.R. Council (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

still needs editing
My understanding is that Jade is now contributing by editing. This is a good thing. However, Alicia and Emily can also help here. Please read my previous comments. I can already see improvements, but pay attention to my suggestions to eliminate redundancy and remove most of the specific details from the sections describing Hollingworth's research. Let me know when you're ready to have me take another look. When I approve this for publication, you will have to submit it for review. They are backlogged and this could take weeks. However, I will still give you credit for publishing. Keep up the good work!J.R. Council (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

alicia Zook I edited the first paragraph I can't log in because I am waiting for wikipedia to reset my password. So it doesn't show that I am the one who did it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.71.186 (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A few more things to fix
Stetter Hollingworth is not hyphenated - just use her last name, Hollingworth

You need to change the part where this appears: "the question of whether or not menstruation can contaminate or damage food by touching it." Menstruation is a process, not a thing that can touch food. What you are referring to is the belief that a menstruating woman could contaminate food by touching it.

The next sentence reads: Many individuals believed this superstition and enforced it.[1] It should say, Many individuals believed this superstition and reinforced it.[1]

This sentence in the conclusion should be changed: "Due to the extensive work done by Leta Setter-Hollingworth functional periodicity was deemed untrue." Better: "Due to Hollingworth's extensive research, the hypothesis of functional periodicity was shown to be invalid."

Once you make these corrections, it's time to publish. Nice work!

J.R. Council (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)