User talk:JRMcCumber1/sandbox

Peer Review: I did not know that friends with benefits was something that has been/is being studied. I know what the general concept is, so this is going to be interesting. 1.    Does the introduction section in the entry provide you with a basic knowledge of the theory or concept? I liked that there is a link to the cross-sex friendship relationship type, it provides more background. What could be improved in this section? I am also taking diversity this semester, one suggestion/question I have is: You mention the “determining the social stigmas surrounding men and women within the FWB relationship”, is this type of relationship one that is strictly a heterosexual relationship directly derived from cross-sex friendship? 2.   What are the strengths of the content sections? I appreciated the number of links that were included in the body, provides the opportunity to gain additional knowledge of the topics discussed. Overall, the content section was easy to understand. 3.   What are the weaknesses in the content sections? In the Social Stigmas section, it reads to me that there might be a sentence, or additional bit of clarifying information, missing regarding the study performed by Jovanovic and Williams. I think the Emotional After Effects section could benefit from a bit more information, it seemed a bit rushed. 4.   Does the “application” section make sense? For those not familiar with the Triangular Theory of Love or the Love attitudes Scale, I do not think there is enough information for the reader to appreciate the outcomes of the application. 5.   Does the “critique” section offer a substantive critique of the theory or concept? The critique section is fairly short and straightforward. As you said FWB is “difficult to define as a theory”, leading to a limited amount of theoretical critiques. 6.   Discuss any issues with grammar, sentence structure, or other writing conventions. In the Content section, there are some grammatical errors, that affect the flow, but this is a draft, so I know there will be tweaking. Overall the look and organization are well done. Lrcarlton (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC) Lrcarlton (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback for Wiki Draft
Lead section: This section is good overall. I’m wondering if there is another way to describe the term with another description besides modern because that can be interpreted as vague by readers. I think you can be a little more concise in the third sentence (e.g., constructed and researched are redundant words).

Background: I think this sentence needs attention: “The cross-sex relationship is a comparably new relationship in American culture.” Do you mean cross-sex friendships? Because the way it is written now could be interpreted as cross-sex romantic relationships, which have existed for a very long time. Also, I would argue that even cross-sex friendships have existed for a very long time, but it is possible that the scholarly attention to these types of relationships is relatively new.

I think you could have a short discussion about how FWB might be similar and different to casual sexual relationships (existing page on Wikipedia), because Wikipedians might want to see the distinctiveness of a FWB article so that it does not overlap too much with the casual sexual relationship article.

Content sections: Avoid adding editorializing language such as “an overwhelming amount of studies.”  Just say “several studies” or something to that effect. Try to avoid the phrase “throughout history” because this is too vague and difficult to provide evidence for. In the first sentence in the second paragraph, who is “they.” Try to avoid these unidentified referents. The sentence that starts with “the outcome of this study showed…” is quite long and complex. Consider revising for simplicity. The sentence starting with “Other studies…” uses another unidentified referent of “this” but it is unclear what “this” is referring to from the previous paragraph. Revise for clarity. Incentives and obstacles: Avoid using “you” to refer to the reader or a general person. The phrase “it is presented” is passive voice and could be revised for clarity. For example “Several studies show..” Emotional after effects: Revise the first sentence for clarity and conciseness. “Wonderment” is a nominalization that is a little cumbersome here. Try to reduce passive voice in this paragraph.

Application section: Avoid saying “research has proven” because scholars rarely can prove something, especially in social science. Instead say “research suggests” or “research demonstrates” or “research provides evidence for.” The love attitudes paragraph needs to be revised for clarity and readability. I’m unclear about what this study found and how it connects to FWB from your description.

Critique: I suggest not referring to FWB relationships as a theory because it is a type of relationship or a context. There might be theories that can help explain FWB relationships but not a theory in itself. I think the critique itself is accurate, but it is a little vague. Basically you are saying that FWB relationships and the research about them is complex. Which is good, but could there be something a little more specific to narrow your critique to?

Nice job with your references. Overall a great start, but there will need to be some revising for clarity and detail. Jrpederson (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)