Talk:Open relationship

Old talk

what's the dating equivalent of this? Where you're free to date other people because you're not exclusive/going steady yet? (unsigned)

The short paragraph on O.R.F.F. should be removed or sourced. I have never encountered it in any published work on open relationships and suspect it's highly localized or idiosyncratic slang rather than a generally used term. 76.191.206.169 (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Polyamory, non-monogamy, and LGBTQ"

Why are these three repeatedly referred to as a set here? LGBTQ doesn't belong. --99.255.76.36 (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and since this comment has stood undisputed for some time now, I'm gonna fix it. 217.159.233.210 (talk) (User:CarlJohanSveningsson too lazy to sign in) —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC).

False friends

There is a slightly humorous misnomer or "false friends" in for example how Estonians frequently translate their word for "common-law marriage"/"cohabitants" ("vabaabielu" in Estonian) to "open relationship". Many Estonians may on social networks like orkut or facebook describe themselves as in an "open relationship/open marriage" when they are in fact cohabitants, and then are infuriated by unsolicited sexual advances from men from all over the world. There are some mentions of this online, and it would be nice to substantiate it properly to justify a mention of warning for this misnomer. 217.159.233.210 (talk) (User:CarlJohanSveningsson)

Open Relationship

I disagree with the article's definition on open relationship. I think an Open Relationship means there is nothing hidden between the couple, if one is having a problem they will voice it openly rather than hold it in and suffer, if one of them is thinking of cheating or has cheated (obviously regretting it) they will talk about it. An open relationship, to me, means to have open communication, to be transparent with no secrets so that the couple could work together as one without confusion.

I think this needs a disambiguation. Imagine a kid telling their boyfriend "baby I just want an open relationship" and then suddenly he looks this up on google to find out what she means; "Oh, she wants us to be able to be with others too! cool deal" he thinks, unknowing that Wikipedia just made him into a cheater. 50.47.140.38 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Polyamory is nothing but another term for an open relationship or a non-monogamous relationship so why all the weasel words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.247.198 (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edu assignment

Preliminary To Do List

Definition

Primary Uses

• where people most commonly use this title
• where it is found in society
  • places such as social networking cites

Origins

• how have open relationships become to be what they are today
• history of open relationships
• how have they impacted society
• statistics
  • how many people are there who currently classify their relationship status as open
  • how many people in the past have classified their relationship status as open
  • prospects of how many people will classify their relationship status as open and whether or not the term will survive past this current time period

Others' feelings on the entire topic of open relationships and quotes

Other notes: Matthew and I will be sharing the work load equally and where ever we can find data that fits any of our criteria we will be adding in to the article

Our resources are subject to change but we will primarily be using Google Books and other various databases such as scholarly journals and recent studies Marikathrynarnold (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC) MatthewSniscak (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good start with the outline, but I'd like to see some sources you plan on using as soon as possible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

Your work so far is pretty good. You need to add more in text citations though.
KazzandraT (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I really like the topics you've picked for your outline, especially statistics on open relationships. It will be interesting to see what statistics say about open relationships.
Kemarcinko (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking good so far. I think another good topic to add are common sets of negotiations in open relationships, more on the different styles of open relationships, and just generally fleshing out the article. I'm curious to see how this article will turn out. Leishanda G. (talk) 8:02, 2 October 2011

I like what is on the page right now. All the definitions/interpretations are interesting to me because until now I've confused "polyamory" and "open relationships" but this page clears the terms up. The outline looks solid, but I also think another heading or two would help the article like Leishanda suggested. Maybe you could add something about other countries' views on these terms or if they are supported or frowned upon in certain cultures or religions. In a soc. of marriage class, religion can be frequently applied but I think it could work into this topic more than others. I'm sure you know this, but you need some more citations/definite sources. Definitely going to be checking back to this page periodically to read up on what you post though, sounds very interesting.
Eaj15 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback. I know neither Matthew nor I ever thought about the importance of things such as cultures, religions, or even class for that matter. Each of these things would effect how people view open relationships and it would help better demonstrate how open relationships are represented in our society today. I can't wait to actually find the time to dedicate to this page and really start hashing this article out. Your feedback is greatly appreciated and I'm sure it will be of much more help once this page really starts coming together. Marikathrynarnold (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you guys have done a good job on your article so far. I think it's important that you listed a number of interpretations for the term, since as we saw in class, people can have differing opinions on the definition of certain terms. It's also good that you chose to include a picture of the 'polyamory symbol;' visuals often make things more interesting. I would continue the way you guys are working, and perhaps add information on polygamy, religion, and legal information, which could be of interest to you/your topic.Ntj2 (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Thanks so much guys; this really helps! Mari-Kathryn and I obviously have much work to do on our topic of open relationships. We've been getting a lot of good feedback and ideas from other groups, such as more specific topics regarding open relationships, and other ways to focus on particular aspects of our topic. I believe we're going to better structure our "To-Do" list and come up with some new ideas regarding open relationships, such as the roles of different cultures and religions as Mari-Kathryn discussed earlier. Thanks for the feedback though, hopefully we have been somewhat helpful as well! MatthewSniscak (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review

This is a really interesting topic. The idea people choose committed partners while still being open to other partners is an interesting concept. I definitely think your group should have a history section on this topic. Maybe even mention "key parties" from the 60's-70's era and parts of that culture. Reading what you have already planned looks like you're going to greatly improve upon the original page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crmatthews89 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review

I think this page is on to a good start. I would suggest exploring the reasons as to why two people may have an open relationship. Such as being away at college, living in two different places, or one partner wanting to save their self for marriage but the other partner not wanting to (that may be a stretch, but my point is there are many different reasons). I hope you take the different cultures route too, because i think that would be very interesting. Good luck. Jade.Richardson (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Reversion

I have bulk reverted the recent changes due to the fact that there are what appear to be OCR errors and that there are numerous [1]s and [2]s scattered throughout the text. This leads me to believe that the added text was copied wholesale from a work which may have been copyrighted. – RobinHood70 ^talk 23:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I can assure you that this text was not copied from any outside source, but since I am working on editing this with a partner he was expected to do the revisions of making those numbers into the links to the sources in which I received the general information. This is part of a group project for a class and in order to help us make the group project work the deal was for him to do the formatting of the page and for me to supply the information due to the fact that I am not skilled with the formatting aspect of wikipedia.

Marikathrynarnold (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. – RobinHood70 ^talk 06:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Preeeliminary review

Since I see a lot of work has been done over the past few days, here are few issues from a quick overview about issues that need to be addressed before GA (a more detailed review will follow within a few days).

• per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, lead should be a comprehensive summary (abstract) of the rest of the article, and should not contain new information. It does not seem to me like your lead is falling short of that.
• the article does not have enough blue links, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking it needs to be wikified
• sentence "The negotiation should begin from a neutral place and with both parties in a stable place of mind.[2]" suggests it was copied from another Wikipedia article (which is fine) but that the reference was not copied
• "Some Statistics" is problematic; why should only "some" statistics be included? Needs to be retitled, and restructured, also by rewriting from bullet to paragraphed prose style
• existing footnotes are terribly formatted; on the bright side this can be easily fixed through this tool I mentioned in our syllabus and wiki guide, please fix this issue ASAP

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Open relationship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll begin reviewing this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I notice two big issues with the article, first and foremost. The article needs to be wikified throughout (see Wikipedia:Glossary#Wikify on how to handle that), and the references need to be properly formatted; see Wikipedia:Citing sources on how to do that properly. I'll give you 3 days to do that stuff, then I'll start reviewing the prose. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just a note that I've informed students that Good Articles reviews have been posted for some articles and they should reply to them ASAP. Thank you for taking up this review! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Three days are almost up, and most of the issues raised by me and the GA reviewer have not been addressed. Please note that the clock is ticking here, and quite loudly at that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry for the delay, I'm working off of an extremely busy schedule and with very little internet accessibility. My partner and I will try to address these issues over this weekend. Unfortunately siting has always been my weakness with Wikipedia and every time I try to follow the formats and guides it never seems to work properly, whereas my partner is much more efficient with that type of stuff. I will see to it that he finds time to do this immediately. Sorry once again for the delay Marikathrynarnold (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur. It's been a little busy to devout all my time on wikipedia, considering I am enrolled in 5 other classes that demand similar work as well. Please be understanding in granting more time to make these corrections... It's been hard to write 5 research papers and learn a whole new way of presenting information that we have been required to learn (Wikipedia) this semester. Also, I'd like know how my grade towards the wiki-deadlines was not updated...Mari-Katheryn and myself have been working on the deadlines and project for months now. Thanks. MatthewSniscak (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Drive by reviewer here. There are a couple of big improvements that could be made immediately: (1) the article seems to rely on a single source, Taormino. A few sources should be used. (2) The footnotes are formatted improperly: they need to include the page number from the source; and also they should not contain the full URL of Google Books, repeated in each footnote. The URL only has to appear once, usually in the References section. Each individual footnote just needs to say "Taormino, p. 252" or whatever. --Noleander (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• If they link to specific pages, those links should very much remain. Google Book page links are the best type of references, even through they are not required, and we accept unlinked, bare footnotes. The editors can chose to use better or beyond-required standards if they chose from, fortunately. That said, shortening could be fine (if again optional), as long as the link is preserved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't link to specific pages. They all link to the same top-level Google Books site for the (entire) source book. --Noleander (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That is one of the problems with reference to be addressed. I am surprised none of the group members tried fixing it or even approached me for help over the past few days; I've been helping several other groups to troubleshoot various technical issues like this one after our classes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand what needs to be done, but I don't understand how Wikipedia formats my sources for me. I can easily place what pages I received my information from for my sources that I used, but I'm confused as to where in the article they should appear. I thought that by hitting on the references part to edit it that I would be able to add those next to the footnotes where it appears as additional text, but whenever I try to edit it, it appears different in the sandbox then it does in the final page. I don't see how I can edit this section to place the page numbers in if they don't appear when I try to edit it. Another problem that I have been having is the fact that I do not have a laptop and find that getting answers to my questions by use of a desktop is extremely difficult since I am a visual learner and need things to be shown to me. Unfortunately technology and I do not get along very well, and it makes completing this page to a high standard extremely difficult and stressful. I assure you that I am doing my best in researching to get answers to my questions but in doing so, it tends to raise more questions, thus confusing me. I am sorry for the delays and am trying my best. Marikathrynarnold (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have the edit toolbar enabled in preferences? It will automatically format inline references for you so they show up properly with all the info. If not, the option (while logged in) is at the very top of the screen with your user name. Click on "My preferences" then select "editing." The display edit toolbar option can be checked. The reference tab allows you to format based on web, book and news sources by filling in the appropriate boxes. To get them to show up, put {{Reflist}} under the References heading. Froggerlaura (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Instructions for easy footnotes

@ Marikathrynarnold: here is an easy way to do it. Let say you are using two books as sources. The first thing you do is create a References section at the bottom of the article that looks like this:

==Footnotes==

{{reflist}}

==References==

*Smith, Tom, ''A Very Nice Book'', Oxford Press, 2003.

*Jones, Mariah, ''Another Book'', Cambridge, 2006.

Then, throughout the body of the article, after each sentence, you include "shortened" footnotes that look like this:

Water can be cold.<ref>Smith, p 25</ref> And it can also be wet.<ref>Jones, p 262</ref>

That is all there is to it. The URL referring to the Google Book site is optional. If you really want to include it, do it in the References section once per book, and dont repeat it in each "ref" footnote. --Noleander (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can get a direct page reference, in which is should be used once per that page reference. Not that as far as I know there is anything in Wikipedia's Manual of Style that discourages it from being used more; I am pretty sure this is just up to editor's preferences (see WP:CITEVAR). There are many ways to reference an article; I've written GAs where full details, with Google Book links (to specific pages), where used in a footnote. An important point is consistency (you should not have some shortened references mixed with some full ones). Lastly, the http://reftag.appspot.com/ tool helps with Google Books referencing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you are right, and there are many ways to skin a cat. My impression of the editor is that they could use some simple instructions on how to start building page-specific cites. Your recommendations strike me as a bit advanced. I was just trying to help them take baby steps. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your approach, it is just that I find the reftag tool can be used to achieve some very good baby steps. It takes no more than few seconds to copy a Google page link into it, and one click generates a cite template that can be easily pasted into an article. That of course assumes the use of Google Books; which is indeed not required, but (from where I stand) highly advisable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This review is approaching a week inactivity mark. Please post an update on what has changed soon, or it may be closed due to no activity from the editors (students) involved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll post a prose review some time tonight or tomorrow. I've been backlogged badly on my end but it's mostly taken care of now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, before I do I would like to see wikification finished. Some progress has been made there but not enough. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and noting that both I and Wizardman have noted the need for wikification in our preliminary reviews on 14 November. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Since that has finally been addressed, I'll throw out some prose comments tomorrow. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently working on adding more information. As you can see I added some more on the study of jealousy within the Negatives section. Although I did this, I know that my citing of the sources is not correct. Could someone show me a tool that will help me cite a journal article? I find Wikipedia quite confusing whenever I try to cite something in it.Marikathrynarnold (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

From your editing toolbar, click on Cite (to the right of the option list), then on templates, then select cite journal, then fill in as much information as you can (minimum required is author, title, date, publisher and the url, as noted on our wiki syllabi. Let me know if that helps. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Piotr, I have all the sources updated except for one. I found your cite toolbar to be extremely helpful except it seems to not work for this one. Here is what I think should be right and work, "<ref name="Hollander1974">{{cite journal|last=Hollander|first=Elaine K.|coauthors=Howard M. Vollmer|title=Attitudes Toward "Open Marriage" Among College Students as Influenced by Place of Residence|journal=Youth Society|date=1|year=1974|month=September|volume=6|issue=3|doi=10.1177/0044118X7400600101}}</ref>" but its not seeming to correspond with the references in my article.Marikathrynarnold (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what are you saying: the reference seems to be present in the article, and is used numerous times. It looks fine to me...? In fact I am satisfied with all the references. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's some prose comments:

• Any reason "Compartment Four Relationships." is capitalized? If it supposed to be then I wont worry about it.
• "is defined as a traditional friendship which sexual contact and intimacy is" use where rather than which.
• "Here we tend to see three types of participants, core members," colon after participants
• "Although it has been around since the 70’s we" change to 1970s and add comma after it.
• "other racial minorities. [7]" rm space after punctuation.

Once those issues are fixed, ideally tonight, i'll bump the assessment to a B. I'll also finish reading the article and note any further prose comments below tonight, and I'll leave this open another 48/72 hours. It's a tight window due to grades needing to be due, and my apologies for taking so long to wrap this up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed all of the prose that you asked me too. As for the first one with "Compartment Four Relationships," my source actually had that capitalized so I followed suit. I personally have never seen that term before and it wasn't referenced in any other article that I found so I just assumed that is the way to refer to it. I hope this is of some help.Marikathrynarnold (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I have fixed the problems that you have seen so far, it has also occurred to me that I'm not really aware of what else I will need to do to my article to potentially get it up to the "Good Article" status. Can you also give me more hints on what you are looking for? Marikathrynarnold (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically, all that's left on my end is just re-reading the article to make sure there's no confusing sentences, typos, etc. Here's the rest of my issues:

• "It is is often seen" Just one is.
• "and wanted,intellectual variety," space after comma
• "Those who sustain an open relationship begin to meet others with the same outlooks which helps the couples and individuals create new social and sexual relationships and friendships, they find others who they can connect with on an intellectual and emotional level, and they even find others who can help with careers and family aspects of life.[5]" this could use a bit of rewording. tweak to 'outlook on life', and the part after friendships could either being its own sentence or split by a semicolon instead of a comma.
• "will no longer exist. The relationship" a semicolon after exist would work better.
• "This emotion, jealousy," The sentence can just start at jealousy, since the rest doesn't really add anything.
• "80% of participants in op[en relationships" in open
• The successful open relationships section feels a bit too long, and is perhaps a bit overdetailed in places. Reading that part felt like it dragged on; see if there's sentences that can be cut or combined that say nearly the same thing as other sentences. The trust paragraph, for example, could be trimmed and added to the honesty paragraph; phrases like "it is crucial to keep in mind" are unnecessary and can be cut out.
• "Also dealing with communication, is the" no comma needed

This is most of the concerns, with only a couple sections left. I stopped there since I'd like to see that section cleaned up early tomorrow. I'll conclude the review with any final concerns after that, though I do believe this is most of them. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've gone through and completed the corrections that you have asked. Let me know if you would like me to try and cut down the successful open relationships section some more. I will do my best if you are unhappy with it. Marikathrynarnold (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It does look better now. Here's my final wave of issues:

• "it is one be conscious of not attacking a partner" It feels like this is missing a word or two; reword.
• "Although this aids in many successful relationships, unfortunately it does not prevent miscommunication, misunderstandings, or hurtful actions. It does however help to limit these." could be trimmed a bit to "...relationships and limits miscommunication, it does not..."
• "receive equally. [4]" fix space before ref.
• "Swinging in the United States, was the first" no comma needed.
• "concepts(open relationships" add space before parenthesis
• "1960’s." 1960s; on the cite apostrophes aren't needed for decades.

I have no further concerns, so once these are fixed I'll close the review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed everything that you have asked me to do. Thank you so much for your feedback. Marikathrynarnold (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's one last issue I caught just before I was going to close this: "^ Wayne Weiten; Dana S. Dunn; Elizabeth Yost Hammer (1 January 2011). Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-111-18663-0. Retrieved 20 November 2011.[page needed]" The page needed needs to be fixed. I'll close the review in another few hours so I may pass this in good faith it'll be fixed, but ideally that'll be swiftly addressed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi sorry about the missing page. I had not even noticed that because I plug it into a citation tool. That should be everything hopefully.Marikathrynarnold (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything finally looks good now, so I'm willing to pass the article as a GA. Well done! Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Update on article revision

Hello all, sorry for the lack of explaining all of the revisions which I have been slowly working on and plan to have completed by next Monday. As you can see, I have redone the citations to properly be considered wikified, and have slowly been adding more information from other sources. By next Monday, I anticipate on completing the sources that have already been listed with page references. Although I hope to get it done before then, I unfortunately don't foresee that as a possibility due to my extremely busy week this week. Thank you for your cooperation and patience.

Marikathrynarnold (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Update for GA nomination

Hi. I was trying to wikify this article. I'm not sure how to fix the references; it appears in the code as though everything is right in the references section, yet it doesn't look good on the actual article (but it looks fine for a few references, such as the "Wayne Weiten; Dana S. Dunn; Elizabeth Yost Hammer (1 January 2011). Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-111-18663-0. http://books.google.com/books?id=CGu96TeAZo0C. Retrieved 20 November 2011" article). How do we make all the references look like this one? Thanks. MatthewSniscak (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There are all kinds of different ways to insert references on Wikipedia. I initially converted your edits to one way, but I think it was probably your prof who came and converted it to a slightly different method, so I'll follow that person's lead so as not to create confusion. :)

In that method, you would cite every source in the References section using one of the citation templates. If you edit that section, you'll see where there are several {{Cite book}} templates already there. If all you're citing are books, then just copy those examples and change the details as necessary, but if you need them, {{Cite web}}, {{Cite journal}}, and {{Cite news}} are also common. Just click on any of the links to get a full description of how to use those. Also, for this method, you must give your reference a name, and it must be unique from all the other references listed (which is usually not too hard, though it can get to be a challenge when you're citing several similar works). Make sure to insert those references before the final }} (which you can see just after the </ref> for WeitenDunn2011.

Once you've got that in there, go to the location in the text where you want to cite the reference, and add (or change the existing one to) <ref name="yourname" />.

Taking what's currently reference 4, for example, you would use the {{Cite journal}} template and add the following to the references section:

<ref name="Watson1981">{{Cite journal |title=Sexually Open Marriage - Three Perspectives |author=Watson, M.A. |journal=Journal of Family and Economic Issues |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=3–21 |year=1981 |doi=10.1007/BF01082086 |url=https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/k553762821526q23/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=nakrvesxv0pxcqiyegnogaec&sh=www.springerlink.com}}</ref>

Don't worry if another editor or bot comes along behind you and alters that slightly - there are a number of recommended content and formatting guidelines in use, so someone might spot a minor issue and fix it.

Anyway, once that's in there, you'd go up to the existing citation in the lead section and change the current ref to <pre name="Watson1981" />.

There, that's one down...14 to go. Aren't educational assignments fun? :) If you want to go ahead and try the above, and maybe a couple of others, I, your prof, or one of the other editors can look them over when you're done and see if there are any issues before you finish the remainder. – RobinHood70 ^talk 05:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like MKA got the hang of it. In case you hadn't noticed it, though, there's one citation that's still broken. Note: I just tried to fix it, but the DOI wasn't found. I've left it as is for now, since it at least gets rid of the ugly red error message. – RobinHood70 ^talk 16:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Open relationship/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The majority of this article is a wall of text written in a didactic tone ("one sees that...") quite unlike that of normal Wikipedia style. It all needs to be broken up and rephrased before even coming close to good article status. I've downgraded it to B-class on both the Sociology and Anthropology WikiProjects. Also, the concern raised in the first review about the article largely relying on a single source is still valid. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

A reassessment consists of more than downgrading the banner assessment. If would be helpful if you gave specific advice for improvement weighed against the good article criteria and give the nominator a chance to respond. If your concerns are not adequately addressed in a week, the article can be delisted. Please follow the instructions outlined at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Hekerui (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've read those instructions, and as you can see my comments are above. The article is still listed as GA status; the banner assessments are separate from that. To reiterate, the tone of most of the article body is completely inappropriate - "essay-style" - and not in standard Wikipedia style. That immediately required the banner downgrades, and triggered this reassessment. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

More detailed example of concerns. To pick a paragraph at random,

Open relationships are still a newly developing concept. Although it has been around since the 1970s, we still do not have much concrete evidence of its existence. Considering this as the case,

This kind of writing, while suitable for an essay, is not encyclopedia voice. The equivalent replacement would be:

While the concept of an open relationship has existed since the 1970s, formal examinations of it have been scarce.

Phrases such as considering this as the case are unnecessary. Also, statements such as has existed since the 1970s require citation. There are also weasel words scattered throughout, such as many believe that... - all of those need explication and citing. I'll probably go through and tag all these in due course.

There's a lot of good content in this article, it just needs to be made to sound like Wikipedia. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet another comment: I've now tried actually reading some of the article and may have to take back my optimism. This is so poorly written that it's virtually impenetrable. Some parts manage to contradict themselves in the same sentence through sheer poor grammar! The authors have obviously tried very, very hard to paraphrase their sources; but it hasn't worked at all. The end result is obfuscation in the extreme. I'm going to try transforming it into something approaching readable, but to be honest, my instinct here is to tear up almost the whole thing and start virtually from scratch since the major sources aren't to hand to verify what on earth this gobbledegook is supposed to mean. Another major issue is that the content is completely America-centric. — Hex (❝?!❞) 06:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this article was written by students for an educational assignment. As much as I'd like to think they care about it after the grades have been issues, I wouldn't keep our hopes up that they are going to respond (you may want to try emailing them through their pages). I would love to be proven wrong, of course, and eat my words :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right! Well, that's interesting. (Good for them!) In that case, I might as well start working on it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As no evidence is forthcoming of any further changes being made to this article, I am concluding the review and removing its GA status. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference to Janus Report Incorrect

The Janus Report (1993) does not say that 21 percent of people are in open marriages. The Janus report contains different tables reporting the percent of people who have participated in open marriage. One table is broken down by gender and marital status: first marriage men, first marriage women, divorced men, divorced women, second marriage men, second marriage women. Each of these groups contains a different number of people. You can't simply add up the percentages across group. Only around 4-7% of currently married and divorced adults have participated in open marriage. A table towards the end of the book looks at the percentage of people who have participated in open marriage by geographic region. This table is even better because it includes all adults. The data in this table indicates about 3% of all adults have participated in open marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.71.213.2 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 25 May 2012

I have removed the entire "Statistics" section on the grounds of it being dated, dubious (for the reasons you give), US-centric and poorly integrated into the article. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Does this Article Violate POV? Original research?

This article relies very heavily on Tristan Taormino's book, "Opening up: a guide to creating and sustaining open relationship." Taormino's book is based on her personal experiences and an informal, unscientific survey of a few dozen people. If this article is meant to be a review of Toarmino's book, or an exposition of Taormino's views about open relationships, then it should be renamed to reflect as much. By relying so heavily on one person's experiences and opinions, this article effectively adopts Toarmino's POV and the original research in her book. It is not a well-balanced article about open relationships that draws on numerous sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.71.213.2 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 25 May 2012

I agree with your comment. When I have finished trimming out the reams of poor-quality verbiage in this article, I will endeavor to identify and remove such material. (I have already done so in some cases.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)