Talk:Gender inequality in the United States/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bailey, I'll be glad to review this one--more comments in just a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance, I can see that you've done some excellent work here. To go from this to this in a few month's time is really wonderful. Your research appears to use high-quality sources (with perhaps one exception: Wikipedia continues to be divided on what degree Huff Post can be considered a reliable source, since they don't have much editorial oversight). You've taken a broad topic that would intimidate even experienced Wikipedians, and filled in many of its important aspects. Please tell your teacher for me that you deserve an "A", and feel free to forward these comments on as testimonial.

This is GA-quality work in many respects, but I think it's not quite ready just on grounds of completeness. The current article does a good job of detailing the state of gender inequality in the US in the present day, as well as some landmark legislation of the 20th century, but the article's scope should ideally include historical gender inequality as well as the present. The lead states that this inequality "has been diminishing throughout its history and significant advancements towards equality have been made beginning mostly in the early 1900's", but there's not much followup on this idea. Ideally, the article would have brief subsections for gender relations in colonial America, post-revolution America, etc. Again, there's moments that nod at this, but the approach seems primarily locked in the present day.

Other things that may be worth a mention: The Seneca Falls Convention seems like it needs a nod as a landmark in the movement against gender inequality. The number of factory jobs suddenly open to women during World War II is probably worth a few words. Jeannette Rankin, Victoria Woodhull, Geraldine Ferraro or other "firsts" may be worth adding to your politics section (Woodhull may be borderline). The evolving regulations for women in the armed forces may also be worth a mention, but doesn't seem to me as essential.

I'm not sure what the best form is for this to take--whether there should be a "history" section, or whether it's best to keep this divided by topic and give the history of those topics individually--but I would suggest that the article expand out more from the present day in some form.

For that reason, I'm not listing this for GA at this time, but I hope you'll consider expanding this in the future and renominating. If you strongly disagree with what I've written above, you're also welcome to renominate for a second opinion. In any case, though, thanks again for the work you've already done to expand this one--I hope it's not the last we'll see of you! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you so much for your feedback, I really appreciate it. I've put quite a bit of work into this article and hope to continue to contribute to Wikipedia in the future. I understand your reasons completely, I originally planned to include a history section but was unsure of its relevance and how it should be integrated, if at all, with the policy section. The only question I have is if there is any work I could do to make to bring the article up, if not to GA, then to B class. Do you have any suggestions other than the addition of more history/background?

Again, thank you so much for your time, I really appreciate it. Baileybrash (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. The biggest advice I have is to move away from journal articles for your next phase, and search out a few books that will give you a chronological, overall look at gender relations (and therefore inequality) in the US; this will help you with organization but also determining what is due and undue weight for various components. I can't name a good book for this offhand, but your prof probably can.

If you can't find a good individual volume or two, you might also look at the books in the Oxford History of the United States series; I believe each volume has a chapter or subsection devoted to women's issues in the given period. It'll be your heaviest trip to the library ever (these are a zillion pages each), but the actual reading would only be 10-20 pages from each, and would give you information on how women's rights and issues stood in each era the series covers.

A third option would be to track issues individually--the history of women's suffrage, history of women's work, etc. You may be able to find books that give a broad overview of these topics that would help you assess what's important.

I'm not sure what the best overall format for this would be--chronological, topical, or some kind of blend of the two. I'd say that's really up to you as you work; feel free to rearrange and play around with it. And don't forget to update the lead as you go per WP:LEAD to give a summary of the article's current content.

Good luck, and feel free to ask questions whenever! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I fully intend to enact changes along this line and pursue a higher article status in the future. However, due to the fact that this assignment has ended, I will most likely not begin these changes and expansions until January. Thanks again for all your help. Baileybrash (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem--we'll see you then. Good luck with finals and enjoy your break in the meantime, Khazar2 (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Piotrus: I certainly endorse Khazar2's comments, it is a very good ("A grade") work. Regarding comprehensiveness, I'd like to see a section on gender inequality regarding the less common genders (i.e. third gender or the LGBT issues). When we talk of gender inequality, it's sometimes too easy to forget that for all discrimination women face from men, the "third gender" group faces an even more significant discrimination. This should be mentioned in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that's a very good suggestion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]