Talk:Gratification disorder

Normal disorder

Why is something that most specialists agree is normal named a "disorder"?--88.73.24.179 (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The fascinating reason is that people who watch it feel uncomfortable because they learned harshly that showing or watching or having sexual feelings is strictly illegal - see "nipple gate" etc.

Societies with this unnatural and irritating ethical concept mostly adhere to death penalty too.

-2001:16B8:305E:C600:9555:966B:1AAE:CC0 (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 June 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jazlynquintana, Kikilinh, Jonramos6, FatemehNovin (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Michaelo415, Noellevo.

— Assignment last updated by Michaelo415 (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Goals

- Look at each source and see if it is reliable

- Look for more sources and information to add to the article

- Different headings/sections (definition, signs and symptoms, cases/case studies, Use in Differential Dx etc.)

- Make the article more digestible (less jargon, more lay language) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FatemehNovin (talk • contribs) 21:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

Question 2: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? A: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]

B: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain]

C: Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? [explain]

D: Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain] Noellevo (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

1. The edits improve the article. There are clear, organized sections that document the history, treatment, and diagnosis of the condition. The statements made by the group seem neutral, however the cases may be biased towards one sex, which could be attributed to lack of research existing for other groups and the time period they were conducted. Most of the references were accessible.
2. The group has achieved their goals. The language they used was easy to follow, and whatever medical terms or medications were used, they were referenced/explained/linked to other articles.
3. D - the article, aside from the cases, tries to remain broad/general, with no targeting of specific groups. The frequency of gratification disorder may not be consistent with the cases presented. The group's use of lay language to explain concepts makes the information more accessible. Noellevo (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
4. The group's edit has added more references and clearly defined their topic in the background and signs and symptoms section.
5. The group was able to find reliable sources and was able to generate different headings and sections as mentioned in their goals. There was a big section of cases which I found interesting and provided good examples.
6. C- The references should include only the year and not the date or month. Other than the previously mentioned recommendations, the references are consistently formatted around to the Wikipedia's manual of style.

Michaelo415 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

7. The claims include verifiable and cited sources, especially in the Cases subsection, which is the bulk of the article. The sources listed can be accessed freely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mppharmd (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

8. Yes, their edits have greatly improved the article. Their edits have been consistent with the topic and very focused. Every addition to the article has been purposeful and valuable.

9. I think the group is close to achieving their overall goals for improvement. They have added subsections that organize the information clearly. They have also provided reliable sources for their information and their research cases. However, I would say that because the topic is for all infants, the group should consider adding a real life case with male infants. All of their cases so far have been only girl infants.

10. A: Yes, the article does meet Wikipedia guidelines. There are no contradictions throughout the article and there is an unbiased attitude maintained in the article. The draft submission does reflect a neutral point of view. There are no negative connotations or phrases throughout the article. To improve the neutral point of view, I would consider adding in a real life case that covered a male infant. All of the cases in the draft submission so far have only been of girl infants. I think it would be worthwhile to add a variety of cases in order to stray away from the potential for any biases.

Svsandhu (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)