Talk:Extra-pair copulation

Untitled

Extra-Pair Copulation in Men

Extra-Pair Copulation in Women

Extra-Pair Copulation in Animals

Please do not delete this page as it will soon be updated with actual information. Psundx (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Great start. Could think about expanding on theorised ideas of female EPC. Aware that this is probably your plan when a 'EPC in women' section is introduced. BD441 (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review

So far I think that overall this article looks great. The introduction to the article being especially great! Additionally the structure of the article is very clear and easy to follow. One main factor to improve would be to add a section about women (which I see you already plan to do). With the section on women, research regarding the link between extra pair copulation and menstrual cycle would be a good addition to the article (as rates of extra pair copulation peaks midcycle). Addtionally, in the 'extra pair copulation in men' section research on traits associated with extra pair copulation could be useful i.e. more symmetrical men report more extra pair copulation. Lastly to complement added research on male traits, you could also look at female traits and this link to extra pair copulation. BF2510 (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice - we will have a look at that when we add more RosieKate13 (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review II

Your article appears to be coming along nicely! I have copy-edited the text, and I have a few feedback suggestions for you:

• In your lead paragraph, I have added links to other Wiki pages which I think should help readers to understand the topic better. I would suggest making sure you add these in when continuing to write the article, as it makes it quick and easy for readers to find out more about specific terms which they may not understand on their first read! It may also help to include more citations in the lead paragraph just to ensure that all of your statements are backed up; for example, when suggesting a hypothesis, or when stating the occurrence of extra-pair copulation. However, this section does read very well, and I think it only needs these small touch ups to make it perfect!
• In terms of the other two sections, I would perhaps suggest combining them into a larger one called "Occurrence", and then keeping the sections you have just now as sub-sections. I would also suggest referring to "men" as "males" and "women" as "females", as the explanations you put forward in your "Extra-pair copulation in men" section do also apply to other species. The "Extra-pair copulation in animals" section would then allow for more examples, with the explanations falling into the other sections. However, I realise this is a large change to the article, and so it would be up to you to decide which form would be best in the long run!
• I also agree with all of the suggestions put forward in the other peer review!

I hope these suggestions are helpful - you've made a great start here! Psundr (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions - these are very helpful RosieKate13 (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review for Human Sexuality

Hi there, I think this is a great start with great potential. I have (probably annoyingly!) added a few tags - as the only thing that I could see to work on was the fact that it says a few times phrases such as "it has been argued", which begs the question, by whom? I think Wikipedia especially discourages this essay-style type of writing - in fact my own wikipedia edits have been changed from "X et al found that" to "Research has found". Overall I think it is great that you have the animal research too in combination with human research, really adds to the evolutionary aspect. Happy editing! Phoebemarplehorvat (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips - as the article develops we are aiming to get rid of the essay style, thank you for pointing that out!Psunej (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review

You made a good start! Here are a couple of thoughts:

1. 'Extra-pair copulation in men' focuses a lot on how men's low investment causes them to mate with multiple women in order to increase their gene diffusion, which is great, but is it really the end of the story? You might want to mention why men would chose to not engage in extra-pair copulations, as staying around the female might increases the likelihood that their offspring survives (through mate guarding). So not engaging in extra-pair copulations also potentially serves an evolutionary purpose.

2. In regard to the previous point you could write a pro/con extra-pair copulations section, outlining why some males might prefer to stay around while others would chose not to.

3. 'A study of one group found 88% in-pair copulation and 12% extra-pair copulation.' Again, how does that relate to the pros and cons of employing such a mating strategy? Are there any inter-species comparisons? Is infanticide less likely to happen among white-handed gibbons? Those are questions that might have been addressed in the literature.

4. 'If EPC occurs in animals which show sustained female-male social bonding, this can lead to extra-pair paternity (EPP), in which the female reproduces with an extra-pair male.' You should elaborate more on EPP: what it looks like on a behavioral level. The 'if' at the beginning of the sentence also leaves you wondering how likely EPP is to happen?

5. As previously remarked, 'Extra-pair copulation in men' needs more citations (or clearer referencing).

All in all a great start for an interesting topic! Roja123 (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. It hadn't really occurred to me to look at it from the perspective of cons for extra-pair copulation. We will look at including this Psunej (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

A well researched article and really good start! In particular the lead paragraph is well-written and definitely provides a well-rounded view of extra-pair copulation, highlighting the importance of the topic. I have a few recommendations, but I believe majority of what I have to suggest has been said above.

• As there is a strong evolutionary basis surrounding this, could perhaps implement a comparison to modern Society - ways in which views surrounding the topic have changed/statistics in terms of individuals engaging in extra-pair copulations.
• Continuing from the point above, may like to include cultural differences. I.e. whether extra-copulations are more popular in differing cultures, or viewed as more acceptable etc.
• Structure wise, I do agree with what is suggested in the reviews above, however can see that you plan to expand and I won't repeat what has already been said.
• I think that description of the motivational factors/reasoning behind extra-copulation is well covered and the added links to others Wiki pages are definitely helpful for readers.

I have made a few minor edits to the page, but overall I did enjoy reading the article. I hope my suggestions are helpful! Rtillman04 (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The ideas on cultural differences and societal change are very interesting and we will definitely look at including this - thank you for your suggestions Psunej (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Really interesting read, well done!

• Very little to copyedit, grammar and punctuation all seems fine
• I really like the layout of this article, immediately from reading the introduction the reader is aware of what the article is about and whether it will be useful to them. The intro is also well written and explained so that a layperson could understand what you were talking about. However maybe include a definition of indirect selection?
• Good links and references so the reader can navigate to different pages in order to read around the topic
• Perhaps a section on extra-pair copulation in woman - I've seen people talk about it which makes me think it exists but I can't see it for some reason.
• You might consider using Buss (1989) to reference section regarding parental investment and extra-pari copulation, there is some interesting discussion in there
• Also this clearly isn't your fault but do you know if there is any reason that when I type 'Extra-pair copulation' into google it doesn't suggest this wiki article? It takes you to a section of a different article
• One more thing, just wondered if you might immediately use the abbreviation EPC rather than beginning with it in the final section? I was going to change it in the copyedit but not sure if it is what you want
• Other than that just agree with things mentioned above regarding rearranging subheadings and expanding sections and a little more info but obviously still a draft at the moment and its great!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martharichards13 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 

Thank you very much for your help - we will definitely make sure we address these points asap. RosieKate13 (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes the link redirect is a bit of a problem, hopefully by the time the the article is completed we will have managed to figure out how to fix this - thank you for pointing it out! Psunej (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Good introduction, not too scientific and easy for a new/unfamiliar reader to comprehend. I have a few suggestions for possibly expanding your page.

• You could include the pros and cons of extra pair copulation in both humans and animals
• You could also include a section on how the quality of a mate may influence extra pair copulation (attractiveness, fitness, etc)
• You could also include different society/culture viewpoints on extra pair copulation and where it is most prevalent

Overall, very interesting and informative, a great start on your article! Francesca alyse (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help - these are good ideas! RosieKate13 (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review

Few comments for improvements:

1. A few images can be added to the page to make it more interesting

2. Citations are needed in several areas

3. The animals paragraph could be expanded by adding other animals or extend existing information. Points that could be added to the animal paragraphs:

- The outcome of multiple mating by females could be different due the-the type of benefits they receive (Birkhead & Moller, 1994)

For example: • Direct benefits: - Paternal care from copulating with two males (Burke et al., 1989)

• Indirect benefits: - Genetic benefits from extra- pair copulations. (Birkhead & Moller, 1994)

Studies that could be included:

• Burke, T., Davies, N. B., Bruford, M. W. & Hatchwell. B. J. 1989. Parental care and mating behaviour of polyandrous dunnocks Prunella modularis related to paternity by DNA fingerprinting. Nature, Land., 338. 249-25 1.

Overall, interesting topic but need to be more informative.

Psunbf (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help - I will definitely look at these sources. RosieKate13 (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Really interesting article! It's not too difficult to understand for the average person and isn't overwhelming. My main suggestions for the page would be to:

· Insert a section on EPC in women (which you're planning on doing)

· Include some images to make it more accessible to the layperson

· You could further break the EPC in Animals section up by species - for example in primates, in birds, in insects etc. depending on what past research has found - research has shown that Ethiopian wolves can display EPC

· A paragraph on culture could be included when considering the causes of human EPC, for example in Mormon culture, many men have multiple wives. Some info on the role socialisation plays would be really interesting! Psundd (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice - I have split-up the animals section and added some images. Images in the other sections will hopefully be added too. RosieKate13 (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Really not a good article

Despite all the rah-rah cheerleading, this is (at best) a lot about a little, and really doesn't hold up well as belonging on Wikipedia — maybe there's a Wikibiology somewhere.

Start with the most basic question: Who coined extra-pair copulation? Under what circumstances? How about the jargony "EPC"? And then there's extra-pair paternity.

There is entirely too much focus on the behavior of contemporary humans. Whether the human race ought to be more than a passing note in an article about the entire animal kingdom is called to attention largely because in two years this article has not deserved to be placed in the category Human reproduction.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

How does this lengthy article not even mention once the word "cuck"?

Title. 24.60.59.171 (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)