Talk:Female intrasexual competition

Points to consider

The article is an oprhan, so link to it from other wiki pages.
Need sentence in introduction regarding the 'variables that influence' section.
Indirect aggression section needs subheadings.
Introduction needs citations.

Danwbell (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is indeed an orphan no longer. A quick fix.

Bfpage |leave a message 09:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Danwell! Thanks for your contribution. I have gone ahead and added the subheading. I plan on adding the content later on today. Thanks once again for the suggestion :)OluGW (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

- Good introduction to some of the terms preceding the contents

- Try to provide more links (using word around the term that will link to another page). Similarly, you could edit other Wikipedia pages so that they provide links to your page in order to encourage more people to read your article

- In the ‘Ovulatory Forms’ paragraph, please define your terms or create links for the words in order to satisfy the needs of the layperson reading your article

- Some sections need a lot more detail and references added, although you have made it clear that you intend to expand your article and future sections are relevant and interesting

- Only a minor point but in the ‘Cosmetic surgery’ paragraph you have written ‘thewaist-hip ratio’ which just needs a space between ‘the’ and ‘waist’

- In ‘Interpersonal Dynamics’, again there is just a small amount of proof reading needed for grammatical errors such as ‘factor’ should be changed to its plural form, ‘factors’.

- The reference section needs a lot of editing in order to improve them, however you have correctly used reliable and good quality sources and it is clear that you have looked at recent trends in the literature for this topic.

- Overall, there is great potential for this article, however you must proof read your content as there are many grammatical errors so it may appear rushed. I have already begun to copyedit this article for you, adjusting any grammatical errors I found. I have also added a reference in the 'indirect aggression' paragraph where you commented that a citation was needed as evidence.

Flocambridge (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Class Project Review

I think the lead could be longer, as it stands now it is not overly informative. Maybe offer a quick definition of self-promotion tactics and indirect aggression, so that the reader knows whether he/she should carry on reading the article; whether this is the page they were looking for, the page is relevant to their research, or the page is relevant to their interest.
There needs to be more links to other pages, the layreader will not understand some of the terms you have used, and therefore, will need to look up these terms. It is far easier for the reader to do so if links are provided.
The reference list, evidently, needs putting into the correct format. Moreover, some authors aren't cited such as Buss, 1989 in 'Variables That Influence Female Competition'
Occasionally, the article strays into informal language e.g. "make themselves look better". I think you could articulate such points in more of an academic manner, and keep the tone (academic) consistent throughout the piece.
The layout of your reference number tags doesn't meet the requirements of Wikipedia; the numbers should come after full stops.
Some points that you make are completely unsupported by research e.g. "It was also believed that male attractiveness correspond to their gene quality"
I have copy-edited the page. As Florence said, it felt very rushed. There were some very obvious spelling and grammar mistakes (such as not using a capital letter at the start of a sentence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannonf94 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shannonf94 (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have referenced for points that were unsupported by research, linked the terms, reference list also updated in correct format. Thanks for your contribution. Suellen Kong (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Changes

Hi all,

I am going to try and avoid making the same suggestions others have already made as best I can, but there may be some overlap.

Firstly, I feel the introduction does a good job of introducing what Female intrasexual competition is but could be expanded on. For example, adding examples of where you might see this is nature, what animals show intrasexual competition, for example interesting patterns have been seen in Baboons. Also be careful about colloquial terms such as “show off” – it might be worth explaining this a little more. You could also add links to external pages, such as Plastic surgery which discusses cosmetic surgery in some detail.

When expanding this Cosmetic Surgery section, it may be helpful to readers to distinguish which kinds of surgery are relevant to intrasexual competition, so far you have mentioned waist-hip ratio but this may not necessarily be an adaptation for intrasexual completion – more an honest signal to gain mates. But I understand the point you are trying to make.

The way you have created sections is really well done, there seems to be a clear structure of how you plan on developing the page and what you feel the key areas will be. Under the variables heading, the subsections on ovarian hormones and hormonal variation could perhaps be combined to discuss hormones as an overarching theme. Overall it seems like this will be a really interesting page to read as it progresses.

Psych1316 (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have combined the two subsections : ovarian hormones and hormonal variation, thanks for your suggestion. Suellen Kong (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions on the main body

Depth and clarity:

In Self promotion tactics, both paragraphs are reasonably clear. However, there are a few instances of oddity which you are recommended to make changes accordingly:

Luxury items can emphasise the higher/lifted status of the consumer, which is a factor that ...
add a space between 'the' and waist-hip ratio (WHR)
... hence making other female competitors look less attractive in comparison

In indirect aggression:

It may be useful to first explain what direct aggression is before going into the indirect one. To do this, you may simply say 'Unlike ..., indirect aggression ..."
Capital letter: In contrast
Typo: In contrast, they would give same-sex rivals ...
To improve clarity, you may divide the first sentence in the second Indirect aggression paragraph in this way: 'Indeed, ... females. Males (cross out: 'who') are said to ...'
Likewise, you may change the following sentence to active voice: '... indirect victimisation showed that females who perceived themselves as physically attractive were 35% more likely to experience indirect victimisation '
Ditto, 'This (cross out: also) highlights how attractiveness of female rivals catalyses indirect aggression'

In Variables ...:

'... using low-risk strategies compared to males ...'.
Please elaborate on how having to take care of one's offsprings makes females use lower-risk strategies. The reader may not understand this enterprise straight away.
Please consider explaining the last sentence of the High genetic quality ... paragraph more clearly. Do you mean male gene quality, as expressed in their physical attractiveness, signals high potential benefits; and females therefore perceive the benefits to competition outweighs its costs?
Please consider rewording raising concern, possibly by replacing it with an emerging concern
Ditto, replacing shown to be an effect on with shown to affect
Please consider adding 'When' before testosterone is produced in ...
It will make more sense if the last semicolon (;) is replaced with ',such as'

PS364 Peer review Ljccrim (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues with typos and markup have been acknowledged and now copy-edited. In places, there are still a few oddities that need to be reviewed by the original contributors. Please kindly consider the rest of the suggestions (which are in BOLD), Suellen Kong, D818hy and OluGW. Many thanks! Ljccrim (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! In response to your suggestions to the indirect aggression section that I have written (which is now titled competitor derogation) I totally agree with you that I should provide a definition of direct aggression before talking about indirect aggression. Indeed, this will aid the reader's understanding of the concept I've introduced. Thanks for your comment, I will be adding a definition of direct aggression as well as a definition of indirect aggression following a suggestion that was made previously by another Wikipedian :). As for the other suggestions you made towards the indirect aggression section, it seems as if other Wikipedians have made these changes before me. So yes, these changes have also been made.Thanks once again :) OluGW (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for your suggestions! Suellen Kong (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions on the article as a whole

Please be reminded that the wikipedia assignment requires both a lead section and a conclusion, the latter of which can be an evaluation of the theories in question or a summary of the key points you have made. More information is available on Moodle.

You are recommended to link the specialist terms in your articles to other internal wikipedia pages or external websites. Information regarding how to do so, as well as how to format your reference list, can be found on Dashboard.

Your article is presented in a logical flow, as you have first described the direct and then indirect aggression, followed by some underlying factors. It would be even better if, in the Variables section, you show the relative significance of the factors - i.e. present the variables in order of importance, and briefly explain how one of them can be more influential than the rest.

You may consider adding a few captioned images to your article. Possible images include those of a cosmetic surgery.

PS364 Peer review Ljccrim (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ljccrim, this isn't my article, but just for everyone's benefit, Corey said that we no longer needed a conclusion. Shannonf94 (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting us know, Shannonf94! Ljccrim (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images added, thanks. Suellen Kong (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review and copy edit

The article overall introduces the concept of intrasexual competition well, with a range of different sub-topics and areas to explore. The article starts well by introducing a brief background so that people are able to understand the difference between intra and intersexual selection. In the introduction paragraph, you have mentioned self-promotion tactics and indirect aggression. Even though you explain what they are later on, it may be a good idea to move these definitions to the introduction so people get a full overview of what you will be talking about before they carry on reading. You could also add a couple of citations in the introduction just linking the definitions to some research so that people can read more into the topic if they want to.

You could benefit from a few more hyperlinks to other pages, so that you can show a wide array of other pages that relate to this, for those who are interested. I have added a couple more links to cosmetic surgery and testosterone

Some of the words used such as ‘hence’ and ‘therefore’ to make it sound less like an essay. I’ve removed some of these words from the text in order to make the phrasing a little less essay-like. Also, for some of the paragraphs, such as ovarian hormones and luxury consumption, it may be a good idea to add a couple more references just to show a wider range of research into the area for clarity and better understanding.

Smandalia (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Class Peer Review

The concept of intrasexual selection is introduced well, it describes exactly what it is clearly and concisely. Understandable to the layperson. However, the beginning paragraph in it's entirety seems quite repetitive. You may want to combine the sentence regarding women (Intrasexual competition between women is the behaviour that females engage in to secure a potential mate) with the previous statement to avoid repetitiveness.
Could also link phrases such as 'self-promotion tactics' with respective sections as to make it easier for readers to navigate around and find out what they need. Similarly more links in general to other pages in order for the reader to get more in depth understanding of what you are talking about
A little more information could be put into the introduction, could put in some examples of self-promoting tactics or brief explanation, maybe some research evidence that supports the idea of intrasexual competition. If the reader isn't getting enough insight in the intro they may go elsewhere to find it.
Examples of luxury items would be useful and more research evidence as this is an interesting area.
Cosmetic section is good, informative and interesting, maybe explaining that a smaller waist and larger hips is a good sign, good indicator of health but maybe explain it indicates fertility too ("child-baring hips"). Again, more research for this interesting area.
Really like the Indirect Aggression section, lots of research and very informative. However maybe it could begin with a definition of indirect aggression before moving into female derogation
I like the way the Variables That Influence Female Competition is set out with title, explanation and subheadings and supporting research
Avoid saying it 'was' believed, when it still is, it's a little misleading
Reference section needs sorting as you probably know
Well done, really interesting and well structured article, just a few suggestions that may make it better :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martharichards13 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

::Hello Martha! Thank you for your contribution and you are right, providing a definition of indirect aggression would be helpful for readers! I will make that change today.OluGW (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review, Suggestions

The main suggestion for improving the article would be to eliminate the name of the researcher and the date the study was conducted when discussing it, as is seen in the sentence below (which is in the 'Indirect Aggression' section)

"Fisher (2004)[3] studied female derogation and the effects of estrogen levels on this form of competition. Females disclosed their ovulation status and rated the attractiveness of male and female faces"

Because the study is cited by a footnote anyways, the source can be found which eliminates the need to mention the name of the researcher and the date. Furthermore, the citation should be moved to the end of the sentence as it is citing the content of the entire sentence.

Furthermore, in the second paragraph of the Indirect Aggression section, 'indirect victimization' should be briefly defined as it is discussed quite thoroughly and can be found confusing by readers who do not know what it is. Alternatively,'indirect victimization' could be linked to the Passive-Aggressive behavior Wiki page which would offer the readers some background information of what indirect victimization is. The same applies for mentioning female 'low-risk strategies' which is not defined in the Variables that Influence Female Competition section. Severu (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree and edit out these types of inline mentions of authorship all the time. It reminds me of the writing that is required in the MLA format where this tendency is promoted. Be bold and change it, encyclopedias are not written with inline references to authors unless they are quite notable, like a Nobel prize winner or something.

Best Regards

Bfpage |leave a message 22:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Severu! Thank you for your comment. You have presented very good suggestions that will help us make our page reader friendly (make it easier to read). I will make those changes today. Thanks once again! :)OluGW (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

The introduction was very clear and straightforward defining any terms that someone unfamiliar with such a topic may have trouble understanding, which is a really great example of a good introduction that can be understood by many. I removed a few words here and there just to improve on the general flow of certain sentences and I have some points for improvements.

(1) Concerning the section discussing luxury items, perhaps you could explain what exactly it is about luxury items that will help enhance a woman's attractiveness, especially in comparison to other items that would cost less or be of worse quality, why there is that perception that these items will make a woman appear better and therefore appear as the better suit for her desired mate. Maybe looking into some studies regarding whether males notice the difference in between luxury and non on physical appearance and attractiveness to potential mates.

(2) For cosmetic surgery sections, it is nice that you looked into the waist to hip ratio topic however are there any other body features that women may alter for competition ,for example breast size to maybe appear more fertile and indicate to males she would be a better suit as a mother for any potential offspring who need nourishment. It would also be interesting to look into if there are any facial features that one may be able to alter to look more appealing to their desired mate, e.g. slimmer nose? Nisep (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nine reviews

I see nine reviews of the article but no comments about any actual changes made to the article. I you find something that adds to the article, don't just 'discuss' it, do it. Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 09:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bfpage, there is a limit in terms of how much content we can add to the page at the moment. This Wikipedia page is part of a class project; the 9 of us reviewers are not in the group creating this page. Thus, if we added content it would interfere with their grade. Therefore we can only make larger changes at the end of the marking period. :) Shannonf94 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 7 years. You can go ahead now that this page is public and probably being cited by people all over the world. Scary thought. Sorrow1234 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why no article for "Male intrasexual competition"?

It seems that either this article should be merged with Sexual selection, or there should be a corresponding article for Male intrasexual competition. Jim Bowery (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need a separate article on "Male intrasexual competition", as that is already covered by Sexual Selection. So I support for the two articles to be merged. See Talk:Sexual_selection#Female_intrasexual_competition —Srid^🍁 21:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You contradict yourself in the link you provide: Talk:Sexual_selection#Female_intrasexual_competition. My question stands unanswered. Moreover, the discussion there supports renaming this article "Human female intrasexual selection". Further, still, there is some confusion about whether evolutionary theory is appropriately included in an article specializing in human sexual competition. This smacks of denial of evolutionary theory -- a sort of denial that is particularly appealing when it comes to humans for obvious reasons, but has no place in an encyclopedia. Jim Bowery (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to focus on non-human animals as well

I initially looked up this article because I was looking for information on female intrasexual competition in marine mammals. This article seems to excessively focus on humans for no particular reason (e.g. I doubt the females of other species get cosmetic surgery or engage in "slut shaming"). If someone with knowledge of the subject could edit this article, it would be appreciated.

TheGreatEditorial (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across the same issue! Baffled by the lack of non-human animals. 130.253.27.1 (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. In concentrating solely on humans, this article is inconsistent with the corresponding article on Male intrasexual competition, which covers the topic from an ethological (i.e. non-human) perspective, rather than an evolutionary psychological (i.e. human) perspective. 2A00:23C6:ED80:7B01:80A6:3D48:F01B:2E34 (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Generalized Behaviours

This article REALLY generalizes female behaviour. They're only applicable to some women in some cultures. It doesn't make it clear that not all women want to attract the same type of man... this article sounds like a sexual selection article about a specific bird species who all do the same predictable thing. It's too generalized. Different species of birds select mates in many different ways, and female intra- and inter-sexual competition varies in myriad ways depending on culture, personality, age, religious beliefs, etc. etc. Different "kinds" of females seek different "kinds" of males. Women who are not superficial and status-seeking may seek men who don't care about women with plastic surgery and revealing clothing. Those women may therefor opt to avoid attention-seeking behaviours like flaunting their bodies... and may compete with women who buy luxury goods by purposefully NOT buying luxury goods. Different women seek different men, in different ways. The behaviours described in this article are only applicable to SOME women, in SOME places. Different cultures value different things, and different female attributes are desirable to different personalities. Women WITH attributes that are desirable in some places may not seek men who care about those attributes. It depends on what kind of male a female is looking for - and what she cares about, and what kind of characteristics are desirable to the males she wants to attract. Sorrow1234 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]