User talk:Saniyachitale

Hi Saniya,

I would begin making changes now. Please don't be hesitant to edit your page, your contributions will be great! 108.44.176.106 (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Wood, J.T. (2005). "Feminist standpoint theory and muted group theory: Commonalities and divergences.". Women and Language 28 (2): 61–65.

Hi Saniya,

Please feel free to send me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns regarding Wikipedia. Have a great day!Fuerst.emily (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer review 1 (Aena Cho)

Hi Saniya,

Overall, I think it might be a good idea to start working on the categorization. Except the sections of Background, Muted group theory across Cultures, and References, the entire article does not seem to be clearly organized enough to understand. More specifically, it seems to be sorted only by the key words or themes of the theory, such as The Control Men Have Over Communication and Gate Keepers, A Feminist Dictinary. But I think it also needs to be sorted not only by the contents but also by the types of the contents, such as Assumption, Basic Concepts, Theoretical Propositions, and Terminology, which are all typical categories used in other Wiki entries on academic theories. Also, I noticed that I can’t find any information on who defines the term “Muted group theory” or how the theory became known as the term

Peer review 2 (Aena Cho)

Hi, Saniya, I think I didn’t notice this last time that the Critique section is kind of messed up. You might want break into several sub-parts by the people who critiqued the theory or the kinds of critiques. For example, from my understanding of the theory, the critique of the theory revolves around three main points: the theory overly essentializes men and women; it exaggerates women's mutedness; and it hasn’t received much empirical support. You might consider organize the Critique section according to these three main points. Also, I saw that you’ve already found a good reference/source on the standpoint theory. I think it’s a good idea to refer to the theory in the Critique section since like the Muted group theory, the theory has also been criticized for the assumption that all men are essentially the same, all women are essentially the same, and the two differ from each other. (User talk:[[Ac1370|talk]])

Peer Review 2
Hi Saniya,

My initial impression of the page, or at least the thing that jumped out immediately, is that I would like the introduction paragraph to have a little more detail. I usually look at Wiki pages to get a general idea of what something is with the option of reading further. I like to have a pretty clear understanding from the first paragraph without having to read the entire page. Fortunately, or unfortunately, you seem to have your work cut out for you because this page definitely need far more cites. I noticed that the first five sections are pretty developed but have only 3 cites total, even though there are plenty of quotes. All of the quotes should have cites. So it seems simple enough. Jr1429 (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Saniya!!

Your page is also well developed and concise! I agree with Wikipedia's criticism, regarding the introduction, it doesn't give the reader an initial understanding of the general purpose of the theory. I think the section on Muted group theory across Cultures can be expanded greatly, using more examples and resources! I think you can also look at Muted Group Theory in new media, such as blogs maybe. This article may help you get started, '''Rahoi-Gilchrest, Rita L. "Momtinis, Not Martyrs: Examining ‘Anti-Mom’Blogs, Muted Groups, Standpoints, and the Struggle over Motherhood." Media Depictions of Brides, Wives, and Mothers (2012): 197.'''

Good Luck!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LangCar (talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Saniya,

I don't have much to add from last time. I saw that you updated the email section, I think it could use a little more information still. As well as the intro to the page. Personally, I would be interested in knowing more about the theory across cultures, maybe something from the Co-Cultural Communication Theory Wikipedia page? I would next ask if there are any other critics of the theory that believe that it outdated, and possible recommendations for updating the theory. Lastly, although the page seems to present fact, it really seems to be written from a woman's perspective, especially the section "The Control Men Have Over Communication" and the feminist undertones on the page. I think in order for the page to seem less bias, or partial, you may want to make some changes to that.

Jr1429 (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)