User talk:Lmcannon/sandbox

Hi, I have some feedback for the content in your sandbox right now!
 * I think the article can be broader in its scope, as it doesn't seem to fully cover the subject. I thought this article from the Guardian was interesting in that it mentioned that reproductive coercion can occur outside of romantic relationships (In some cultures, other family members, particularly older female relatives, frequently interfere with another woman’s reproductive autonomy.) Other good sources that expound more on who may commit reproductive coercion include and
 * I thought this line could be clearer removing contraception on or in someone's body. At first, I thought it was again talking about removing condoms. I realized it was something else, though, which makes me think it's oddly phrased. I see now that you're likely referring to Contraceptive patches and/or hormonal vaginal rings. If this is what you mean, consider using more specific language (and also links to the specific contraceptives you're referring to) to make that clearer to the reader.
 * I'm not sure what the distinction is between the sections on "pregnancy coercion", "birth control sabotage", especially as the section pregnancy coercion includes content related to birth control sabotage. Furthermore, the concepts of pregnancy coercion/pregnancy pressure sounds nearly synonymous with the article title. This reminds me of how when defining a word, it's best not to use the word itself. Put some thought into how this article should be logically structured so that the reader is smoothly guided through the concept. I like the structure of Intimate partner violence--maybe you'll find it useful to look at.
 * It might be useful to have a section called "methods" and then have separate subsections that outline ways of reproductive coercion. You could have subsections for birth control sabotage, verbal coercion, etc.
 * I know we mentioned it before, but the one-sentence section on Mexico can probably removed if it is not expanded.
 * Based on the edits you've made so far, it looks like you may be relying excessively on a single source. Citing multiple sources will give strength to the article and emphasize that the ideas you're including are represented in multiple, reliable sources.

Let me know if you have questions about any of this feedback so far! Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi ,

I agree with much of what you say above and am still working on finishing my edits. One point I wanted to make however, is that the sections on pregnancy coercion and birth control sabotage are not my arbitrary section names. These are the two primary sub-categories of reproductive coercion that are seen across the literature (with the third being controlling the outcome of a pregnancy, which has much less literature so I am still working on developing that section). I hear what you are saying about not using the word itself to define itself (coercion in this case). However, this is a well-established in the field and is not something that I can arbitrarily change. Thanks for your comments. They will help me as I continue to work on this article.

Also, what can I do about the portions of the article that someone has supported with citations from a blog? There isn't scientific evidence behind these sections, but can I just delete them? Also, I feel like the whole article needs to be rewritten, so should I just introduce my changes in small chunks?

Thanks! Lmcannon (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, so it sounds to me as if there are three types of reproductive coercion? You could structure the article so that this is clear with a section "Types" and then a subsection for each of the three types widely seen in the literature. Or is birth control sabotage a type of pregnancy coercion? If so, then it could be a subsection of that section. At present, the relationship between this concepts is kind of murky, but I trust it will become clearer as you continue to develop the article.


 * Feel free to totally rewrite the article if it is not really salvageable. For content cited with a blog, you can remove it outright. I see the current article has issues with uncited content as well. That can be removed without prejudice.


 * One more thing--your ping didn't quite work (it's okay, I have this page watchlisted). In the future, though, you have to make sure you include someone's exact username. Mine, in this case, is Elysia (Wiki Ed). Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)