User talk:Juliahonda/sandbox

Recent Edits
Hi Julia this is a tester - NL Nlegate (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Pulled quote: “This form of sexual contact and pleasure has been shown to only please a certain minority of people.[1]”

Would you be able to specify a percentage or ratio (i.e., 1 in every 50 people)? Do people in committed relationships recorded higher participation or is this completely random? I would also consider placing this sentence in the second paragraph in the overview section instead of the introduction as it seems a bit choppy in its placement.

Your history section needs citations. There are a lot of claims made and it would be good to include the reference for which you received this information in case someone wants to further their research or cross reference with another source. Same goes for your overview section. I see that you put a reference to source 2, but source 2 needs to be referenced throughout that whole paragraph as this information is coming from a study. Editors need to make sure the information is being pulled from a reliable source. Also, the paragraphs underneath your new one in this section should be placed above the research studies as it flows better.

I’m pretty sure you are still working on the terminology section, but make sure you put the additional information on the terms top/bottom together. LGBTQ power dynamics section could be better structured. I feel that the content is a bit choppy. Again, not sure if you are still working through structuring the content, but it seems like it.

The safety section seems a bit underdeveloped. Would you be able to add some information describing the points already mentioned? The section on consent and contracts has a section on safe words that is kind of redundant to the overview section. Maybe you can add a sentence in overview about safe words and stick the bulk of information on that in consent and contracts. I would also make use of subheadings as there is a lot of information on the different terms that would serve a better if they were clearly identifiable.

Overall, make use of subheadings for the bulky paragraphs to help with structuring information. Also, make use of your references. You make a lot of claims that need to be backed by a source. Amilon3 (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You have written quite a bit and it seems as though the information you contributed has greatly improved the quality of the article :) I really enjoy the terminology that you took the time to add and I feel that that was something definitely missing from the article. If I were to critique your work, the only thing I would say is that you should properly source claims that you make so that whatever bias you have is backed up by a credible individual or scholar in the field. Although this article is not a medical one, the sources should still be there even if it is a simple opinion to share. It would be interesting to include a section that talks about pornography consumption and the rates of people who identify themselves as being in sexual relationships that use that dynamic. I wonder if people are more into dom/sub relationships after watching porn about them. Also, it would be cool if you found any evidence of such relationships among animals other than humans!! Otherwise really good job I think that you definitely are on a steady track. --Anastasia Shylnov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastasia.Shylnov (talk • contribs) 16:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Final wiki contribution comments: Overall great content added. There were some small grammatical issues that I edited directly in your page. There were some parts that were unclear, such as this statement "The growth of dominant and submissive behavior, sadomasochism, and other BDSM activity are evident through its history coming from ancient times all the way to the separation from disorder to consensual community participant." But really great content you added, I can see it's well-researched. Nlegate (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Feedback for Gender Pay Gap in Sports
Julia, I thought your contribution was very informative and well thought out. Not only did you just talk about the equal pay, you went into detail about title IX and the history of women not being paid equally. I only noticed one grammatical mistake in your his section, it was this, "we had a women run for president". This just needs to be changed to woman and that's all. I thoroughly enjoyed this and learned a good amount in the process, you did an excellent job. KMCC448 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Kayla Cattouse-Cowans

Julia, your contribution was very detailed. I like how you provided statistics to address the wage gap throughout the years. I did notice a few grammatical errors under the section titled "Equal Pay": "Women use to have..." should be "used" and "...they’re dispute after the 2011.." should be "their." Other than that, you did a great job. --Yrodriguez17 (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)