User talk:Sroc073/sandbox

Response to Proposed Changes
I like the summary idea of the changes proposed, but what exactly are you going to be adding to the Wiki article? The exact text you will be using. Only when provided with this information can we make an accurate review of the changes. The part in the summary also where you mention "been deemed more accurate than Sir Richard Frances Burton’s 1883 translation" is a biased statement. More accurate by whom? Who is deeming it accurate? I would suggest amending this statement if you will be including it in the final edit, or possibly removing it entirely and just say "Another translation of Kama Sutra given to us by...". This way it will keep opinions out of the article. I like the variety of sources you are using to make your edits, but again I am still not 100% sure what is being added. Aheuer (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Aheuer

Bwylie11 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)== Response to Subject Change ==

The Kama Sutra Article overall lacks information, but the adding of Doniger's translation of the Kama Sutra allows for the text to be looked at from a number of angles. The inclusion of women's pleasure emphasizes the validity of the sexuality of women as well as men. Even though the page talks about Kama Sutra looking at sexuality the wikipage doesn't discuss it if not for the newest edition.

The citations are also valid, the addition of new material makes the article more neutral and inclusive of all identities.Bwylie11 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

During class i had a hard time understanding how to relate the Kamasutra with a queer and LGBTQ reference. I beleive it will be most helpful to bring current, updated, and dig more into the history where there could be possible reference that are more detail and specific references and examples about the Kamasutre in a queer sence. Overall interesting take into what most people can think about the Kamasutra overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariel20 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Article Peer Review
I do like the contributions that are being planned for this article. I think that this is information that could potentially make the article more interesting but, also informative. I am only wondering about the section you are planning to add, since as I see it will be something completely new to the article. Will this section of third gender also be connected to Hinduism and LGBTQ? As in, are all these three topics be under the same section or will it end up being something or more than one section needed to be added? Also, what specifically about these topics be added to this article that will make it more informative? Does the section already have a specific place where it would be added set? I think it is important to know the perfect place for it, that way it will blend in and fit exactly the way it should as a new addition to the article. Narait31 (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review(s)
I think overall the reviews were very helpful. In my draft for the Wiki, I only gave an overview of what I wanted to change and it seems that is what was most critiqued. I made sure to be more concise and specific in my final edits. 2600:1700:3040:7570:A415:9305:C442:4121 (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2018 2600:1700:3040:7570:A415:9305:C442:4121 (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Sroc073

I recently added queer peotry section. In order to show that his work is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariel20 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)