Talk:Sexual script theory

A fact from Sexual script theory appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 July 2008 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the sexual script is a sociological analysis of what leads up to sexual intercourse?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/July.

Wikipedia

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology C‑class Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on July 2008. Further details are available here.

Sexual script theory was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 28, 2008). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

The stylistics

At the invitation of The Prokonsul, I had a look here. I see issues:

with the format of the lead (per Military sociology) and the lead 'graph; it might earn a {{context}} tag from me, in normal use.
with insufficient links out, which would put it on the Dead-end or Orphaned pages, & earn a {{deadend}} &/or {{orphaned}} tag. Test it at "What links here". (I confess, I don't know the criteria for "deadend", 'cause i've seen stubs tagged that would be nothing but linkfarms if more were added.)
with lack of footnotes (a perennial complaint on WP; it'd be tagged for "lacking inline citations")
with some of the psychobabble (but maybe that's me).

It's showing signs of a good page, but at a glance, it still needs a lot of work. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 19:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional review avenue

You may want to consider Wikipedia:Peer review to attract more reviewers.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic review

You may find the below suggestions useful._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- are considered
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[?]
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sexual script/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the Good article criteria and has therefore failed. Issues include:

The article has a maintenance template at the top of the page; this shows that the article still has issues. The specific issue here is that there is not enough inline footnotes to clarify that all of the information in the article has a reference; several paragraphs go unreferenced, so it is unclear whether there are references available to verify the information.
I don't recommend putting a numbered list directly in the lead.
The lead should be a summary of the entire article rather than an introduction. Some of the information in the lead, including the numbered list, do not appear elsewhere in the article.
Format the "Social Construction of Gender." reference according to WP:CITE/ES; that is, it requires at least a publisher and access date.

Please renominate the article once these issues have been addressed. Gary King (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context presumed?

There is no indication here of the context of a particular society (e.g. the U.S.? Western societies in general?) but clearly some such context is presumed (e.g. in the statement about double standards). Should be clarified. - Jmabel | Talk 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think like a reader

Further suggestion: the idea here isn't to show off that you know something. It is to convey information to a person who came here to learn about this. - Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

The article is very unclear on when this idea originated and how it may have evolved over time. It suggests (but doesn't say outright) that Gagnon & Simon, 1973 - very vaguely cited, by the way - is the origin of the term. Is it? - Jmabel | Talk 22:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End of assignment: summary

I want to thank all editors who have contributed to this article, either by editing it or by reviewing it and offering help on this talk page. While the article has fallen short of the Good Article criteria, it has progressed from a red link on requested articles list to solid C or even B class. The latest version edited by the students was this one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Active Voicing?

The intro mentions "active voicing." I have no idea what this is. Is it related to active voice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.35.58 (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]