Talk:Gender inequality in the United States/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will have this to you within 48 hours. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

"As of 2012, the World Economic Forum ranks the United States 22nd in terms of gender equality out of 135 countries" - 22nd what? Highest?

Yeah. Fixed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"cisgender" should be linked in its first mention, not the second!

Fixed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead seems to summarise the article, so this should comply per WP:LEAD
"Among the one hundred largest cities in America, ten had female mayors" - United States

Fixed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2001, M. Margaret Conway," - is the initial 'M' her first name?

Yeah

"The United States is falling behind other Westernized countries" - Westernized? How about just western?

Changed to Western and linked Western world. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Researchers from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor" - disamg to just University of Michigan?

Fixed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph in the 'Achievement gap in school' section is unreferenced

In fact, it was moved from Achievement gap in the United States#Gender achievement gap in the United States and the one who did it did not sourced it but it is sourced to the same source of the second paragraph. See. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Events in the LGBT+ community such as Transgender Awareness Week and the International Transgender Day of Visibility are focused on educating and informing the public about transgender individuals and the challenges they face" - unreferenced!

I've simply moved sources from Transgender Awareness Week and International Transgender Day of Visibility's articles. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"trans individuals have much higher rates of suicide attempts than cis individuals" - cis??

Changed to "cis" to "cisgender", as well as all instances of "trans" to "transgender". Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second initial comments

In regards to the discussion in the "on hold" section, I think we can all agree on an expansion to the history section. In order for this article to meet the 3a. GA criteria it has to be fully comprehensive and broad. In its current standing, it does not even mention anything of before the 1970s! Take the Suffragette movement for example, there is plenty of content out there to expand upon. This article should elaborate on what action has been taken to improve women's rights (especially in the early 20th century) and who the main activists were (similar, or contrast, to the Civil Rights movement that happened in the 50s-60s, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X etc). The gender gap on Wikipedia is controversial at the moment (I don't get why), so this is why I'm worried. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ref 35 is broke and leads to a different page
Ref 46 is dead
Ref 37 redirects to another page, not sure if this is just me?
Ref 53 redirects to another page also
Other than those broken links the citations are all in the correct places, so that meets the GA criteria

For me, 35 and 37 are okay. The pages show "Full Text (PDF) More Than “Just a Joke”: The Prejudice-Releasing Function of Sexist Humor Pers Soc Psychol Bull February 2008 34: 159-170, first published on December 4, 2007" and "An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. By Glick, Peter; Fiske, Susan T. American Psychologist, Vol 56(2), Feb 2001, 109-118." and its abstract respectively. The article itself isn't show but the links seem correct to me. I've replaced 46 and archived 53. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

Overall this is a well written article, it is broad, generally comprehensive and has definitely improved since the last GAN. I'm actually confused on why it didn't pass last time, but I do agree on the fact that currently it does look like a good "A-class" article. I am actually well versed in the history of the United States (especially this period) and the feminism movement, so it was an interesting read. The only thing standing in the way of this becoming GA now are some of the prose issues, the trouble with the references, and everything else I had mentioned above. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and once they have been addressed we'll take another look. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking) The nominator, baileybrash (talk · contribs) has been inactive for at least six months, and probably won't be responding to this. Montanabw (talk · contribs) might be amenable for doing the fixes, but I can't promise anything. Frankly, after the recent Arbcom case, I think everyone's a bit frazzled by any gender-gap related work. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for pointing that out Ritchie333! I didn't check his contributions. If there is no activity for seven days, I'll have to close this, but it would be a shame to let this article go as with a little work it could be promoted. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would much rather this was left open for a little longer and found a volunteer to improve it. I was going to ask at WT:GAN to take this article off the queue entirely, and wait for somebody else to nominate it, which would have at least got an improved article when somebody stepped up to the mantle. It's a bold topic to tackle, certainly, so it's a job well worth doing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got the ping. I must say that though I have an interest in the topic, I'm not quite up for being the volunteer you need here. I'd be glad to lurk as a neutral in any discussions of content, but best to find someone else with more energy to devote to the topic. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to stroke your ego too much Montanabw, but you're the only person I can think of who is interested in the topic, is around regularly and not contemplating retirement, has a track record of creating good content including understanding the GA criteria and has (AFAIK) no record of dramamongering other than maybe defending Eric a bit too closely (and for me to criticise you of that is, frankly, the pot calling the kettle black). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly a connoisseur in the are but as most of the problems were technical I've solved them. I'm not sure I can fix more in-depth problems, however. For the problems in the first nomination, Khazar2 indentified a lack of a historical recap (and I totally agree) as he stated, "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." Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing them. I agree the article could be improved by expanding more on the past - there were movements similar to the Suffragettes back in the 1910s, but the article doesn't actually define what part of history it elaborates on. I'm thinking this article could be split into a "History of gender inequality in the United States". But we're not aiming for FA, so there is nothing against it only focusing on contemporary events (which it does). But from a GA perspective, it is well written and thanks to your improvements it is closer to meeting the GA criteria. I'm still lingering over passing this, but the only thing that is holding me back from doing so is whether or not this article does lack a lot of historical content. Thoughts anyone? I know that gender-gap related work on Wikipedia is under controversy at the moment... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am having second thoughts passing this article, as I have read it for a third time now, and while it is broad, it is nowhere broad enough. It doesn't elaborate on any of the history of gender inequality, for example when it first emerged, whom the activists were or anything before the 1970s! Still not sure if this should be split into a History of gender inequality in the United States or if this article should cover it. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see a need for a split at this point. It is hard to do a GA review of an overview article which, by its very nature, cannot be completely comprehensive. I'd say that a suggestion to expand the history section a bit would be in order. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think you're right. I have added a lot more to the "second initial comments" section. It will be a shame to let this article go, but it is sadly missing a lot of content... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see the article I created get so much attention, through I am a bit annoyed about the pattern of student editors nominating articles for GA and leaving. Did anyone try to reach the course instructor, User:Vignespassy, and the volunteers (User:Jami (Wiki Ed), User:JoyceChou, User:Twoods158? Even if the student(s) don't give a damn, having received the grade, one would hope that the instructor would feel morally responsible enough to comment here (but they are likely not aware of this review happening). Regarding the article itself, it looks pretty good, but it indeed suffers from not being comprehensive; the see also section is too long, suggesting a number of relevant concepts are not discussed. GA's don't have to be fully comprehensive, but I think a history of gender inequality in the US section, and another one on activism, are needed. Also, only two out of four or so measures of gender equality are discussed in the rankings section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I too think it's annoying when anyone nominates an article and leaves it! All of the users are inactive and haven't edited in months, but there are a lot of pressing issues that need to be addressed before this can meet the criteria. Unless a few people get together and expand the history, it's sadly unlikely that this can be passed. It is missing a lot of content. The gender gap is a controversial topic on Wikipedia at the moment, this is why I'm treading lightly... I could leave it open for a few more days and see if anyone is interested. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The instructor of this course really only recommends the top student editors and articles consider applying for GA. I'm certain they didn't expect the process to take so many months or to irritate any editors. Hopefully we can assume good faith that they simply wanted to increase the number of Good Articles (which reach a lot of readers) that are relevant to the gender gap. If you guys think it needs just a bit of revising, I'm happy to reach out to the instructor to see if she wants to try to engage User:Baileybrash. Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, let's assume good faith for instructors, too. They wouldn't be trying to help if they didn't want to do it. So, Jami (Wiki Ed), if you could leave them all talk page messages, and email them, hopefully we will see the instructor post here soon. If the instructor could promise to help fix those issues, I think we could leave the review open for another week or two, perhaps even a bit longer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that students were involved in the development of this article nor did I know anything about an instructor! I don't usually check the history while reviewing articles nor did I see who was active for this one (I have learned my mistakes now). It would be great if someone would notify the appropriate nominators as again I'd hate to see this one go. It still needs some work of course, but if someone were to pick this up by all means I'll be happy to leave this open for as long as they want. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've left messages on the talk pages of the Campus Ambassador and the instructor. If they don't reply in a day or two, I'd suggest a follow-up by using their email this user links. If there's still going to be nothing, we may have to chalk this up to another "student assignment - GA process interaction failure" category :( But let's hope for the best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, it's been another week, are there any updates? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's clear that the editors in question don't log in, thus are likely unaware of any echo-pings, I've sent them an email. Through since the talk page posts should've sent them an email too, I wonder if we will see any reaction. Let's hope for the best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, do you think we should give it before Christmas Day or New Year's Eve to close this if nobody responds until then? The responsibility of a GAN can always be picked up by somebody else if they want to? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar, if they haven't responded to an email by Christmas Eve it's unlikely that they're going to do so as the school vacation continues over the holidays and past New Year's Day. You've extended every courtesy, and a final week (through the 24th) is more than generous for a final attempt to get a response. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - not listed

I would like to thank everyone here for their comments and generosity in trying to contact the original nominators of this article. At the moment it is very unlikely the nominator(s) will respond, especially over the Christmas holidays. At the time of writing this it is Christmas Eve (in my time zone) and after three weeks I think it is in everyone's best interest to close this GAN for now. This is still a very worthy article and as the gender gap force on Wikipedia is always developing, it would be encouraging for some people to get together and address the only real concern this article has - and that is the missing history. I will be more than happy to review this again next time, so I'll add this article to my watchlist and will help out in any development. Merry Christmas. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 23:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jaguar and everyone else. As an educator myself, I'd like to apologize on behalf of the education program for taking your time in a situation where the instructor and students don't feel responsible for the project after the course ends; at the same time I'd like to think that this review will be a valuable resource for whomever else will continue to develop this in the future. And even the aforementioned instructor and students should be commended for valuable contributions, even if they don't fully understand what GA/Wikipedia process is. Merry XMAS and goodwill to us all. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]