User talk:Moe.abuameer/sandbox

Sexual Abstinence article review:

-Maybe don’t address “all of us” because it's possible it's not the case for everyone so maybe instead of generalizing it you can say it can happen to some people or something on the lines of that

-Try not to use personal pronouns since this site attempts to be unbiased

-Instead of saying the article talks about sex abstinence, you should try addressing the points they make instead of saying that they discuss it

-As well with the “This research shows…” maybe actual state what the research shows and what the research either had proven or disproven, something the article actually states with hard facts

-“Sexual intercourse has multiple positives psychological effects.” Like what?

-Avoid using “us people,” try to be unbiased

-“So what happened when we don't get in a sex intercourse?” —> “So what happens when we don’t have sex?”

-“On the other hand, having less sex, or stop having it will result in more illnesses due to the gap in the support of our Immune system. ” this is basically saying exactly what you said the sentence before because you said regular sex can improve your immune system

-“A study made by Health Line reported that saliva samples of college students who had regular sex were found to higher concentration of certain antibodies called immunoglobulin A, which fight the common cold.” Great Fact! If you find more things that su[port your claims like this that would really help the article, as long as they are from secondary sources.

-Vaginal Health- make sure to state your source also maybe touch on the topic of abstinence benefiting vaginal health

-Cardiovascular health- if you can try to say how abstinence may benefit your health if you have a source on it

-do not address the reader as “you” or "your"

-maybe rethink asking questions and instead try a transition sentence it could help the flow or the article

-make sure your sources are secondary sources and not actual studies because your source 4, 5, 6 kind of sound like studies (source 6 says its design is a cross-sectional study) and not a literature review or meta-analysis

Final wiki contribution comments: Overall good content added. But there were typos, grammatical issues, and many overstated claims throughout that I edited directly in your sandbox. Also, the claims you are making are absolutely medical/health related, so you would have needed to include secondary sources for this per the wiki guidelines. I wish you had discussed this with me earlier (your edits being taken down) vs. the very end of the semester. I hope you spend a little time finding some secondary sources for these claims and reposting because you clearly did some good work on this! Nlegate (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)