Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2015/Masturbation motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit] -


this article has a really good definition of drive theory

Chapter review and feedback

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Chapter marks will be available later via Moodle, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png


  1. Overall, this is a very good chapter which clearly covers theory and research about a particular aspect of sexual motivation and behaviour.
  2. The chapter is well structured, researched, and written. The grammar could be improved.
  3. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.


  1. Theory is well selected, explained and applied.
  2. The Overview and Conclusion are particularly good sections, providing strong beginnings and ends to the chapter.
  3. The case study/example was helpful.


  1. Research is well covered.
  2. The Reeve textbook is over-used as a citation; preferably consult and cite primary, peer-reviewed sources.
  3. When discussing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
  4. The key issue that is not covered is causality. Many correlational statistics are cited. Usually the assumption seems to be that the sexual behaviour is the causal factor - but it could be the other way around, bidirectional, or due to a third factor.

Written expression[edit]

  1. Written expression is generally clear and easy to follow, but has many grammatical errors.
    1. The quality of written expression could be improved (e.g., see where clarification templates have been added to the page).
  2. Layout
    1. Tables and/or Figures are used effectively.
  3. Learning features
    1. Add Interwiki links (e.g., to relevant Wikipedia articles and other Wikiversity book chapters) to make the text more interactive.
    2. Quiz questions could be used to encourage reader engagement.
  4. The grammar of many sentences could be improved (e.g., see my copyedits).
  5. APA style
    1. Add APA style captions to tables and figures.
    2. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Moodle site. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener.



  1. Overall, this is a well prepared and executed presentation.
  2. Overall, this is an excellent all-round presentation.

Structure and content[edit]

  1. Well structured.
  2. Theory was well covered.
  3. Include citations about evidence for claims.
  4. Well concluded.


  1. Audio is clear and well-paced.
  2. Visuals are clear and easy to read, with a good balance between text and image.

Production quality[edit]

  1. Overall, well produced using simple tools.
  2. Rename the title so that it includes the subtitle (and matches the book chapter).
  3. Description is minimal but sufficient.
  4. Adjust the youtube license to reflect the license in the comments.
  5. The copyright licenses and sources for the images used is not indicated - there may have been copyright violation unless you own the copyright to the images used or these were public domain images.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


Since it is totally w:WP:FRINGE/PS. AFAIK Brody is an AIDS denialist. He assessed the probability of getting infected with HIV through PVI to that of being struck by lightning. Tgeorgescu (discusscontribs) 12:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"But women are not asked about rectal intercourse, there is the same problem with dissimulation, blood donors are not a representative sam-ple of the population, and many people from the risk groups use blood donations as a way to get free HIV tests," Brody says. "So I expect the true HIV rate for Americans free of injected drugs and re-ceptive anal intercourse to be far less than one in 7,500." He expects that accurate evaluation would identify no more than one HIV-positive risk-free American per million.Combining those figures, Brody says that a risk-free American who has a single act of unprotected coitus with a random risk-free partner is about as likely to be-come HIV-positive as "be struck multiple times by lightning in one year, or win several state lotteries."

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (discusscontribs) 13:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
“I’m not saying that it is impossible for unprotected vaginal intercourse to transmit HIV from a positive to a healthy adult negative partner. Anything’s possible. It’s possible to be struck by lightning. But the two risks share an analogous probability, effectively zero. If healthy, HIV-negative Americans want to worry about unprotected vaginal intercourse, they should worry about the drive over to their encounters. If their partners have never injected drugs or received rectal intercourse or blood therapy, they are more likely to be killed in an automobile accident on the ride over than they are to become HIV-positive.”
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (discusscontribs) 13:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Almost 50% of the papers cited in the article are papers by Brody. Tgeorgescu (discusscontribs) 14:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)