User talk:Emily.sargent

Please leave me comments with your signature , Thank you Emily.sargent (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me comments with your signature , Thank you Emily.sargent (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on article

This is a good article and an important addition to Wikipedia psychology content. However, it suffers from poor grammar. For example, take the first three sentences: "Functional Periodicity was an idea of physical and mental impairment among women during the time of their menstrual cycle. Men held a higher opinion during this time period because society functioned in a male dominated atmosphere." Compare with the following rewrite: "Functional Periodicity was a term used during the late 19th and early 20th centuries for the belief that women were physically and mentally impaired during their menstrual cycles. Men were regarded as superior to women during this time period because society functioned in a male dominated atmosphere. Male psychologists promoted the idea of functional periodicity and confirmed that it was valid."

Since this is a new article, it has to be submitted and reviewed by Wikipedia editors. Doing a thorough job of proofreading for correct grammar and "encyclopedic" tone will greatly improve its chance of being accepted. For this reason, I am rating it '2' or not quite ready for publication. I don't think this will be too difficult, but you need to examine each sentence carefully. There are a lot of mistakes.

Some other things that need attention: The last part of Background and history section, on Hollingworth, is redundant with the next section. Also, the editors will not like the amount of detail in the sections describing her research. Again, easy fixes. Once more, the content is generally good. You just need to do some polishing to make this a fine article. J.R. Council (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]