Talk:Friends with benefits relationships

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 10 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fermentedtoes (article contribs).

NPOV language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

The article currently uses distinctly non-neutral language, such as "The motivation for many of these relationships is typically companionship, and after time the affection for the partners involved often becomes genuine." The term "genuine" is loaded and devalues Friends with Benefits relationships, as if they are illegitimate and false. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amatonormativity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.231.241 (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

How does that imply FWBs are illegitimate or false? “Genuine” in this context means that they can begin to love each other romantically, beyond just sexually. Perhaps it can be changed to “romantic love” Justanotherguy54 (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Peer review

Form feedback for user:road2tip from user:ktdav:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

This particular topic had an extremely underdeveloped Wikipedia page. Road2tip added extensive information, to include a new a complete lead section.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, this user did an excellent job being clear and concise in the introductory sentence. It makes the reader become interested, because it gives away just enough information to know what the article will discuss.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The lead section describes the article sections to an extent. However, there could be more explicit language of the topics that are to be discussed later in the article. For example, this user mentions that women and men enjoy FWB relationships in the lead section but doesn't relate this in the third wave feminism topic until later in the article. The content section showcases a hefty amount of information on third wave feminism so I think that adding more information about it in the lead section could do wonders for the flow of the article!

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, everything stated in the lead article is present in the article. Good job with that!

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead section is a bit concise. I think that adding a little more "beef" (i.e. going into a little more detail about the main content sections) could only benefit the article in the long run! This way readers will know exactly what to expect.

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The content added is one hundred percent related to the topic! It all adds interesting spins to the topic at hand, Friends with Benefits relationships.

Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, this information was last edited on October 5, 2020.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There is not necessarily content missing as this topic is very complex and subjective at times. However, the content sections are a bit short and could use either some additional information, or some other theories to be mentioned. There are so many different paths one could take when writing about FWB. I do think that these sub topics are a good start, but there is room to add more significant information about why the are important when studying the main topic.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps?
Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No, I don't believe it does.

Is the content added neutral?

The content is neutral. There is no particular biased claim made, but rather the user identifies different ways of thinking in regard to the topic. The user doesn't make an assertions or factual statements without citing the author.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, I have not found one example of heavily biased or slightly biased claims.

Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?

In my opinion, I believe that the author did an excellent job of showcasing both sides of an argument or assertion. It made it easy as the reader to understand all the possible viewpoints, and then develop my own opinion.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Not at all. Again, the author of this article does an incredible job of writing in a neutral tone.

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

N/A

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

I think that these are good starting sources. Each of these sources give an overview of all the information presented on this topic. I think that there is room to include a few specific articles. For example, you could include an article about attachment theory and related it specifically to FWB. This way you are allowing your article to be more in depth in an array of information. You could do this with an article for each sub topic.

Are the sources current?

Yes, the sources are current. None of the sources are more than 10 years old. This is a great way to make sure that we are current with our information.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

These sources do include a wide array of authors. They don't necessarily focus on marginalized individuals, but they do focus on a marginalized topic... casual sex and the differences in stigma between the genders. This is an ongoing issue in our society and has been made more popular by popular culture such as movies and televisions.

Check a few links. Do they work?

All of the source links work! Well done.

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The content is well written, but as previously mentioned there is room for more content to be added! It will only benefit the overall article.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are a few minor grammatical errors (commas and run on sentences). I suggest running the article through a source like Grammarly, that is what I do and it helps so much!

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The content is broken down well and has a great flow. The sections could use some additional information.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

This article included one photo, and it is a photo of what I assume is a FWB relationship. It is just two people holding hands in the snow.

Are images well-captioned?

The caption is very vague, but there isn't much I can think to add that would necessarily enhance the page..

How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

I think there are definitely more articles out there that could enhance the article as a whole. I have given some examples towards the beginning of this review.

Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles
— i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?

This article is an improvement on the existing article. That article didn't include any content, just a title page. The flow of this article has vastly improved the understanding of this topic.

Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

It does not, but that is something that the author should consider when making final edits. For example, they could link the attachment theory page when discussing it in their content section.

This article is a complete 180 from what was already established on Wikipedia. This user pretty much built it from the ground up and has made a solid foundation for the wikipedia community to build upon for years to come. The only criticism that I have is that the content sections are just a tad under developed. Once there is more information added to these sections, this article is going to be awesome! I have added a great source that you could consider using when making final edits, it deals with the attachment theory.

https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886919303630

Please let me know if you have any questions on anything that I said! I would be happy to give further detail if needed. Ktdav (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Road2tip (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Future suggestions

I might suggest reviewing the citations in order to check the information adheres to what appears on the sources again. There are also many statements that require the appropriate citation (especially within the "Research and studies" section). In addition to that, the research and studies provided need to be explained more and given further context. There seems to be a lack of cohesion between each example.

Another thing is to possibly add more examples underneath the "Portrayal in media" section as there is currently only one.--Fermentedtoes (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added one more example to the "Portrayal in media" section. However, it would be beneficial to continue to add more. Possibly, it would also be beneficial to create subsections for different sectors of media such as movies and literature, etc. Fermentedtoes (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of new sections

There are various examples given of a "Friends with benefits" relationship within the body text of the article that could do with a bit of cohesiveness. (Presently, they read as small out-of-place interjections.) They largely fall beneath the general category of "pop culture" examples. I plan to add a new section titled "In Popular Media" or "Representation in Media" and moving the examples there. Fermentedtoes (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Zagrożenia .

Taki układ to ryzyko  ; choróób wenerycznych ,nie wiadomo z kim ta osooba spała skoro tak bardzo lubi seks , Ryzyko ( kobieta ) zepsucia sobie opinii i bycia uznaną za łatwą.Szczególnie niebezpieczne dla nastolatek , które potem mogą zostaćc napadnięte. Nastolatka nazwaną łatwą może nie pottrafić nawet tego zgłosić . Nastolatki są znane z słabej odpornosci psychicznej . 5.173.176.21 (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)