Talk:Occupational segregation/Archives/2015
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Peer Review
I want to start by saying that overall, this is a very well-written and well-researched article. You do a great job of incorporating the work of various scholars, and the article outline is very easy to follow. My one major suggestion concerns the overwhelming focus on gender: doesn't occupational segregation occur by race/ethnicity as well? I did a basic google search and found that this was the case. Although you may not be able to cover all of the research regarding occupational segregation by race (due to time constraints), I think this is an important issue to recognize, at least in the lede. Doing this would emphasize to readers that occupational segregation does not only occur by gender, but by other social factors as well.
Secondly, I would strongly encourage you to go back through your article and carefully look at your use of citations and periods; there are several instances where periods are left out all together before citations. In addition, there are a few typos ("bais" when you meant bias; "self-select" when you meant self-selection). A careful read-through should take care of these errors. Also, make sure that you are correctly capitalizing throughout; according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, only the first words in headings/titles should be capitalized (i.e. "Educational disparity" instead of "Educational Disparity." Virginiawhite09 has already pointed out many of these specific editing errors (see above), so I won't go through them again.
- I have been making some minor changes (typos, list formatting, etc.) and have modified the referencing technique so as to use footnotes, and citation templates (e.g.
{{cite journal}}) grouped into a Bibliography section (see #References. benzband (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Third, I think it is very important that you go through your article and make sure that scholarly ideas are being referenced accordingly. By this, I mean two things: first, there are a few instances when facts/points of view are stated without necessary citations. A good example of this is in the "Educational disparities" section, when you state that women's educational attainment has outpaced men for the past 40 years, and no citation is included. Secondly, don't be afraid to reference specific scholars when stating a specific point of view (as discussed in class today). You use the phrases "some research" and "some scholars" a few times, when it may be more appropriate to cite the actual sources themselves.
One last suggestion: I think your Solutions section could be improved; right now, there are a lot of different ideas presented together, and it is a bit difficult to follow. I suggest that this section be divided into two sub-sections, such as "Cultural solutions" and "Policy solutions." Also, consider beefing up this section a bit, if time allows; after reading so much about the types/causes/maintenance of occupational segregation, it would be nice to have a little bit more detail on how this practice can be eliminated.
I know I've given a lot of critiques, but don't be mistaken - the work you have done here is incredible. These are just some thoughts I had that I think could serve to make what is already a great article even better. Great work! Crr4 (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)