User talk:Raiyaka

Welcome!
Hello, Raiyaka, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead
The changes you made to the lead definitely help introduce the body of the article. I like how you incorporated the definition of pornography as the first sentence, especially since the original lead didn't include one. I am a bit confused on the addition of the second sentence. You can probably go without it. The introduction of the major headings/topics is a good choice.

I know the original article places the relationship between pornography and addiction in the lead, but I'm not sure it necessary. Maybe you just need to make it more concise? You mention that addiction isn't the biggest consequence of pornographic consumption, but you don't state what is. You should either make an argument for what the biggest consequence is or just remove this part altogether.

There are a few key points in the lead that don't have accompanying citations, so that's something to keep an eye on.

Content
I really like the addition of the sexuality theories you added. They are very topical and relevant. For social exchange theory, the addition of is being "a rather important one" feels more like an opinion -- the theory itself is strong enough to stand on its own.

I think your additions to the sexual script theory are relevant to the topic, but I'm curious to know why you decided to remove the sections you did. For example, the reference to a 1986 study by Simon and Gagnon, even though it's several decades old, is still relevant and helps to further link the theory to the effects of pornography.

I really like the addition of the cognitive effects section; I think you can expand that a bit more!

If I'm reading it right (which there is a good chance I am not), there seems to be a lot from the article that you removed, specifically from the sexual scripting and pornography addiction sections. Was the idea to make it more concise?

From the section "Mental 'physical' effects and its studies," I really like the section and how you expanded the men & women sections a bit more, but the title of the section is confusing. I would consider rewording it or explaining a little more what that means in the section's intro.

Under the "controlled studies" section, I can absolutely see why you would want to remove the section discussing the internal and external validity of experiments. However, instead of removing it altogether, you might want to keep a sentence or two explaining how controlled studies are not able to be generalized, but why their findings are still important in this context.

I like the addition of the "pornography mirroring and consent" section, but I would be careful about including claims without proper citations. It makes it feel like you're trying to persuade the reader to feel a certain way.

Regarding your concern about leaving the "occupational safety" section, I see your point in wanting to remove it, especially as it does not directly relate to the MEDIA effects of pornography. My only argument (in playing devil's advocate), would be that this article is not necessarily strictly concerning the media effects, but rather all the effects when it comes to the creation and consumption of pornographic material. The effects on those who participate in the creation certainly do count as "effects of pornography." However, I don't think the article would be greatly affected either way, if you do end up choosing to remove it.

The content added is up-to-date, most of the sources being from the last 10 years. However, even with studies or sources being from previous decades, the information is still relevant and helps to support the statements presented.

This is so minor, but I don't think you need to capitalize the names of the theories. Also, you should probably stick with 'pornography' throughout the article instead of shortening it to 'porn' sometimes. Just an idea!

Tone and Balance
I would definitely take another look at any unsupported statements or claims. One of the reasons this article is flagged on Wikipedia is because it seems like a "personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay." Just make sure everything can be backed up by a reliable source so it doesn't get flagged again. I would take a second look at the lead, men and masculine attractiveness, and pornography mirroring and consent sections.

Otherwise, I think the article is free of any biases.

Sources and References
See the tone and balance section above for some places to look for missing citations.

Looking at the references, it seems that many of them are from primary sources. (Full disclosure, I am also having a problem with this with my article!). However, the inclusion of more secondary sources might add to the effectiveness for this article, especially considering that this is one of the main issues with this article to begin with.

A few citations (ex. #12) has a formatting issue, so be sure to check on that before citing it in your article.

Organization
There are sections from your proposed draft that I don't think need an entire section dedicated to it. The scripting framework you added is a great section and I think you should keep it, but I don't think it needs an entire sub-heading. Similarly, for the "pornographic consumption and its effects" section, it seems like it ties into both gender and addiction, but neither of those sections are under that section header. If you're not planning on adding anything else to that sub-header, I don't think it needs a section on its own. You can probably combine it into the intro of another section.

The content you added is well-written, but I do see some grammatical and formatting errors. Some unnecessary capitalization of theories and terms that don't warrant capitalization. I think for section headings, only the first word is capitalized and the rest is lowercase, unless there's a proper noun.

Be careful of contractions! I know I'm using them here, but be wary of them in academic writing. Also, make sure to place the citation after period in each sentence.

Images and Media
The addition of the photos you added are great! I think they are well-captioned and also help to break up the text of the article a bit, especially considering how long this one is.

The "Preventing sexual violence in conflict" logo is a good addition, but it would be better if it was mentioned directly in the article. Or it might be better to choose the logo of an organization that you do mention.

Overall Impressions
Overall, you made some great changes to this article! I'm very impressed at the amount you were able to add to an article that was already pretty well constructed. I think the organization of the article as a whole was improved. Most of the added sections and sub-headers help to make the organization a bit clearer.

The theories you added definitely help to bring this article into a more communications/media-based perspective, which helped to make it a little less biased or persuasive.

While your additions definitely added to the article's effectiveness, I would take a second look at the material you're choosing to remove. There are some very substantial sections that are built out pretty well, and I think changing them too much would detract from the article's overall success. I understand wanting to make the information more palatable and concise, but make sure you have a valid reason for the removing your chosen information.

Songbirdsnake (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)