Women’s Pornography Producers Peer Review
• Good Citations
• I was a little confused with the wording and order of sentences in the first paragraph.
o Maybe give a little more of an introduction just to state what the article will be talking about overall
o State a clear statement of what the article is about, because I was unsure of what the article would be talking about.
o Whether it is the producers of women’s pornography, or women pornography
• Anti-pornography feminists and pro-pornography feminists was an interesting topic
o You could say a few more things about each to show how they differ in some aspects
What woman’s pornography looks like
• Good structure in both paragraphs
• Towards the end it starts to sound a little bit like an argument
o “Not being slandered and disrespected by a man is what woman’s pornography is supposed to look like. Woman’s pornography is real. Its real connections and real orgasms between two people.”
• This is saying how woman’s pornography is better and this paper is supposed to be neutral
Individualist Feminism and Pornography
• Very Good
• Check for grammatical errors
Overall, the article is very good and well written. However, I would add an introduction and a conclusion just to sum up the article. It was just a little confusing of what the overall topic was; it just jumped into these three different topics about pornography. Other than that, very good use of citations and very well written.
Eberg18 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I emailed the peer review to Liam
Ldutre2 (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)