User talk:Roshelle.Firdman05/sandbox

Hi Roshelle,

This is definitely a good one to work on, plenty of issues to address.

For the body image section: This whole thing could use a rewrite! As you mention, there is a lot of missing source information. The first few sentences are posing an argument/making an assessment and sound more like opinion than objective information. I'd suggest deleting them entirely or giving them a heavy revision (just have the section start with the sentence "There are many different factors...".

The section is also very gender normative and assumes binary gender/sex.

- I tried to make i less gender normative without assumption of binary gender/sex but it is quite hard and I'm not sure if I was able to catch everything.

This part should be summarized/paraphrased and remove the quoted bit as well as the author's name. It sounds argumentative as it's currently written: "Helen Winfield in her article "Body Image and Psychological Well-Being in Adolescents: The Relationship between Gender and School Type" explains an adolescences high school experience is closely linked to their perceived body image. She analyzed over 336 teenagers and found "ratings of physical attractiveness and body image remain relatively stable across the early teenage years, but become increasingly negative around age 15–18 years because of pubertal changes".[61]"

- if I am taking away the authors name,am i supposed to footnote her source or just leave it because it is already in the bibliography/works cited? Also should I taking all of the quoted bit away? or just paraphrase it to not sound argumentative.

The same goes for the next quote/reference - maybe paraphrase and shift the tone.

Other notes: I'm not sure what was meant about removing the math gene part (from the talk page?) - there is not a math gene that has anything to do with gender. There was a study released recently that showed boys and girls don't process mathematic information/input differently. There should definitely be references, but they should be of studies that best address the current and credible research.

- That part was not me,it was the lat person that edited. I just included it to mention that whatever they removed, there may be more to be removed that may not have a credible source.

And yes, I think a lot can be revised for bias/argumentative tone. So this is a good start!