Talk:Pretty privilege

The content of Body privilege was merged into Pretty privilege on 4 July 2025. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Review

Nabbatie, good start! View your page's history to see if I made any edits or left any templates.

I did some formatting and correcting of case. Please review.
I added a "see also" section, which you will want to expand.
Your own TODOs: "Sourcing and include citations, include gender section, improve writing style to match Wikipedia guidelines."

I think this can proceed to mainspace once you review my changes and do any of the necessary tasks from your TODOs; otherwise, you can continue to work on the this as we go along. -Reagle (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Online Communities

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2025 and 15 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nabbatie (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rjalloh, Erinroddy, BenjiDauNEU.

— Assignment last updated by Rjalloh (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

1. Is on a notable topic? Yes! I love the topic, super creative.

2. Has an appropriate structure? Yep! Everything looks good here and I like how you structured it.

3. Is well-written? It's clear and understandable and flows well!

4. Is of appropriate length? Yep!

5. Is completely neutral and unbiased? Yes, I didn't see anything that seemed bias at all.

6. Makes use of verifiable sources? Yes, you used a lot of sources and there was nothing where I thought there should have been a source. You did this well.

7. Has relevant, high-quality images? No but I'm not sure what pictures you would use here so I would say it looks good so far!

8. Includes informative, relevant media content? No, but again, I'm not sure how you would incorporate that but this would be an interesting point to look into more and find out if there would be any possibility to do something with this.

9. Follows proper navigational procedures? The article has a good amount of wikilinks and external information. I like how you put in related concepts.

10. Will never reach perfection? I definitely see a possibility to add more and continue adding to this!

Overall, I really like your article and love how you did it. It contains a ton of relevant information that's useful to your topic and it's a super original idea which I love. -Erinroddy (talk)

Peer reviews

Hi Nick, this is Benji doing your peer reviews. I think this is a strong article, super clear and well researched. The topic is important and interesting. Here are some areas for improvement:

Lead section: I think the intro is strong----it explains the idea of pretty privilege. I think it would be more helpful if you could explain where it shows up in daily life, like jobs or school.
Structure: The article flows well. I like how you organized every paragraph. It makes everything easier to read
Sources: Solid references actually.
Tone and Style: The tone is neutral and that's perfect for Wikipedia.
I would add like a visual to make it eye catching lol but this is up to you. But great work overall!!! BenjiDauNEU (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for building this article. There's been quite a lot of positive discussion about it over at Talk:Body privilege#Merge to Pretty privilege?, so that we've now brought new content to here.

Klbrain (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mediocre article

This article needs significant improvement. Its current structure - Definition (the lead), Related concepts, Effects, Responses - leaves major gaps. Most notably, it jumps straight from a limited definition to a 'See also'-like section, without explaining mechanisms or providing empirical evidence. There's no section on how 'pretty privilege' operates cognitively, socially, or historically. This omission severely weakens the article's credibility. Compare that with what a modern editorial approach might produce. An AI-generated outline could offer structure like: Definition, Historical context, Mechanisms behind the bias, Evidence and empirical studies, Cultural differences, Intersectionality, Criticism and controversy, Related concepts, Impact on individuals, In popular culture. With that framework, I could use an AI to generate well-sourced content in under an hour, and my role would shift to editing, verifying claims, and checking references - far more efficient and rigorous. But here's the deeper problem: this article was created by a total newcomer for a course assignment. We encouraged them to dive in and try, which reflects our commitment to openness and mentorship. Unfortunately, the result is an unfocused patchwork compiled from scattered sources, likely assembled without clear guidance on editorial standards or article structure. Over time, experienced editors will inevitably invest energy into repairing the article. That's admirable - but also a preventable drain on resources. What we need is a mindset shift in how we teach new contributors: not just "have at it," but "build smartly." That means showing new editors how to collaborate with AI tools to generate robust, source-supported content before submitting a first draft. AI shouldn't replace human judgment - but it can eliminate the scaffolding mistakes that make later edits a slog. Let's rethink what onboarding looks like - not as a trial run in public space, but as a co-piloted learning journey, where quality and encouragement go hand in hand. --62.166.252.159 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]