Talk:The Prisoner of Sex

Article Issues
Neutrality

Examples of questionable statements/lines in the Summary section below, emphasis my own for clarity:

Though unwilling to admit many of their grievances, he acknowledges the problem of unequal pay: "Even men opposed to Women's Liberation were willing to agree that the economic exploitation of the female was a condition in need of amendment."

In this section he also falls into the stereotypical male tropes of female neurosis, blaming a woman's period for car crashes, increased admission to mental hospitals, and crime.

These would be fine, if sourced, outside the Summary section, but not in it.

Sources

The only sources used for this entire summary section are the book itself. I don't believe wikipedians are allowed to summarize a book in its entirety without relying on outside sources.

The only other three sources are one for each different critique summarized in the article in their own subsections.

These also have issues, like why we are spending multiple paragraphs for each critique? This seems excessive and abnormal.

Tone

The overall tone is off. It reads like an unedited essay, and probably gets too detailed.

Inline Citations

The only inline citations are for quotes from the book. This also seems abnormal.

Overall, I question the entirety of the article, especially since it was entirely written by one Wikipedian, and all subsequent edits were copy edits and did not change the overall content much. 71.11.5.2 (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)