User talk:Jceccarelli04/sandbox

Peer Review
1. Hi Joe! I think you've got a pretty good amount of work to include, as I am not sure how substantive the information you can find on such a topic is. I like that you gave a more solid structure to the content, and that you're adding evidence that the word is changing. You did really well on including or changing the things you had on your list from when you evaluated the article yourself, which can definitely be difficult to accomplish. I think it's good that you're really trying to give balance to the connotations of the word in the article, because it seems as if it is currently trying to convince readers that the word describes "gross" women. I see that in your "Potential additions" section, you have that the word is abusive in nature, and I think it would be a great addition to the article if you could find evidence that either features that word (abusive) or that you can paraphrase to include "abusive in nature".

2. As such, I know that there is not much to add to the abstract without just previewing what will be featured in the article, but I think if you could add maybe just one more sentence, it would appear more complete. Maybe adding a preview of how "chickenhead" is received in society, especially since you want to include Cardi B and her reclamation of the word with empowerment, and perhaps include synonyms of "chickenhead" then go into detail on those in the "Etymology" section. You could also maybe seek out one of the sexual psychology professors and see what information they could point you to about the intentions, definitions, history, and real meat of the word - I am not sure that will be very substantive or helpful and doable, but it's a thought. I think that would give the abstract a more wholistic and solid overview to readers.

The structure of the "Etymology section is kind of strange, since it is broken up into such tiny chunks of information, so I would look into maybe finding just a small bit of information to create a transition sentence, that way the second paragraph doesn't start with "However", since it is not really contradicting anything said before it.

I am not sure if the "Bibliography" section is literal bibliography for information in the article or if there are biographies about people who claim the word to describe them, and I am not sure if you know about it or want to fix it, but perhaps leave a note on the article's talk page if you aren't sure what to do either. This would be a good clarification to look into if you have the time.

3. I think that the most valuable advice I could give you for this article would be to look into two types of sources. "On the ground", real world use that doesn't include media, unless that's all you can find - and then note that in the article. Works published by sexologists, linguists, and maybe even anthropologists that have had at least some degree of focus on words associated with sexuality, particularly 'chickenhead" and other derogatory vs empowering terms.

4. Before reading your article, I would not have thought to include an etymology section in my own, but I think it is a good idea, and I am glad that you are adding to yours, because word origins are so important, especially since nothing is inherently what we have named things. Good luck! Michsm (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)