Talk:Self-objectification

Hi Anne (Annie?) !

Your article is laid out very well in terms of building information around the culture of self-objectification. I think that your heading "Relationship with Objectification" is a teeny bit misleading because as an audience we don't know what entity you're relation right away. Maybe saying something like The Relationship between Objectification and Self-Objectification" would clarify the content right away.

I think the sections you have, thought, have been developed very well and touch on the significant components to your topic. Your writing is very cleat and each section transitions well from the one before.

Good job!

Hcolbrunn45 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to pop in uninvited...just wanted to take the blame for changing the heading to "relation to objectification". I changed it because of MOS:HEAD, a guideline (part of the Manual of Style that states that section headings should, among other things, follow sentence case and not refer redundantly to the subject of the article (we like section names to be short and easy to make links to), and generally, we don't need to use "a", "an" or "the" unless it's "an inseparable part of a name" or "part of the title of a work". I come in (sheepish) peace, Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Broken References Edit

Just want to apologize, there's a bug with the editor that made the references look blank / non existent to me, so I removed them and the statements. Once I realized I was wrong a couple hours later, I undid my edits and made things the way they were beforehand :). Just wanted to explain what my thought process was for transparency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Van Ballin' (talk • contribs) 07:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)