Talk:Gender inequality in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article is biased, doesn't meet NPOV[edit]

All issues in this article present females as the disadvantaged gender. Yet there are numerous areas of life in the U.S. where males are at great disadvantage, or victim of "gender inequality" as the article is titled, yet there is no mention of any of these issues in the current article. The question:

Why is this article so biased, and why is there no NPOV for this article?



Claiming that The Gender Gap index measures gender equality is not true[edit]

Actually it measures the well-being of women as can be read in then methodology section (although the fact is not said straight out, naturally). But the article is so biased that who cares if there is one lie more or less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Expansions[edit]

Hello, I am a student at Rice University, and I am planning to expand this article as part of an assignment for my Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities course. My current plan of revision and expansion is written below, and any input or advice would be greatly appreciated.

I plan to add a new section on the history of gender inequality in the United States. I also plan on reworking the issues subsections. I plan to retitle politics as political participation and add information about the disparity between female political representation and population will be added. The economics section should also be expanded to contain a breakdown on the wage gap between genders as well as information on gendered poverty, and a proposed workplace and employment section will include women in the workforce and information on internalized bias in hiring. Further information on the effects of gender roles and norms on gender inequality will be added to the social life section, including the division on household labor, treatment of young children based on gendered stereotypes, and misconceptions about gender and socialization. A new section on other issues will be created to address issues that do not fit into the other existing categories, such as rape culture and sexist humor and their effects on sexual violence in the United States. A section addressing past, current, and proposed legislation affecting gender equality will be added to reorganize existing information and to contain new information on the subject.

Baileybrash (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Baileybrash: Your proposed edits sound like they will be a great contribution. Don't forget to search Wikipedia for other related articles (even some from past classes at Rice) that you can link to in your article instead of duplicating the research and time it takes to create it. Enjoy editing, and let me know if you have any questions that come up! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 1[edit]

Your article is incredibly elegant; it is very well-developed and cited. I would ensure that you are including a neutral point of view towards gender inequality, rather than one that only considers the inequality that women face. Moreover, I would expand upon a few of the strong facts that you state abruptly regarding the inequality of women versus men, in order to reveal their relevance to gender inequality instead of simply feminism. I would consider expanding upon why and how legislation was passed in order to “alleviate” gender inequality, and how the effects of these implementations are seen/not seen in labor forces/colleges of the present. How can we improve gender inequality? What are future steps towards improvement? Think about these challenging questions, and allow them to frame your work. CarolineABrigham (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Overall, this article was a great and informative read. My main issue stems from the phrasing of certain sentences such as "However, individuals of either gender with masculine personality traits were advantaged when applying for either masculine or feminine jobs, indicating a possibly valuing of stereotypically male traits above stereotypically female traits.[9]" It's sometimes a bit unclear in regards to who you are referring to. In addition, under your occupational segregation by gender subheading, it would be great to provide real world examples of said phenomena. Your article touched on the important aspects and perspectives on the debate about gender inequality. The main hindrance to the comprehensiveness of your article is the effect of gender equality of different ethnicities of women. Do some ethnicities experience higher instances of gender discrimination than others? Finally, your article was extremely well referenced and followed Wikipedia's criteria for being a good article. The main thing left for you to do would be to perhaps expand your content on key sections such as "education", "sex discrimination in employment" and "other issues". You could take the opportunity to talk about the affects of gender inequality/discrimination on those that identify as transsexual. Dmbonsu (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Dmbonsu

GA review comment[edit]

Please note that WP:GAN backlog is significant, and articles can wait for a GA review for ~3 months. It is sadly too common for educational project GANs to receive reviews after everyone (students, instructors) have finished class and stopped their activity on Wikipedia. This consumes the time of a reviewer who could be working on a non-abandoned article instead. Since this is an educational project, I want to ask the involved parties (student(s), instructor(s) - pinging User:DStrassmann, User:RobinPaige) - how long will you be active, waiting for a review? In other words, when does this class end (at which time we should presumably cancel this GAN request). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This course is part of a two semester sequence in an undergraduate minor that requires six courses total, so this student will be continuing to edit Wikipedia as part of the minor for longer than the current semester. Additionally, I will be monitoring the pages of any students who submit their pages for GA review. Students are discouraged from submitting their articles for good article status unless they are prepared to continue to monitor and work on them. DStrassmann (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gender inequality in the United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

Proposed Expansions, Spring 2014[edit]

Hello, I am a student at Rice University, and I am planning once again to expand this article as part of an assignment for my Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities course. While my expansions last semester were primarily focused on the inequality between men and women, my proposed expansions for this semester are focused more on the inequality faced by transgender, nonbinary, and other non-gender conforming individuals. This topic is much less well understood and less attention is given to it than inequality between men and women both in the media and by the general public. This article could serve as an accessible resource that outlines the facts of the current situation and allow for the general Wikipedia-using population to form a more well-informed opinion on the subject. I plan on adding a new section on the differences in inequality faced by cisgender women and the inequality faced by transgender individuals will be added, as well as new subsections on health in relation to trans individuals. The existing subsections will be expanded to include information on inequality and discrimination towards trans people. Any input or advice would be greatly appreciated before I begin my revisions. Baileybrash (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review 2[edit]

Bailey, I think your contribution is very well written and does an outstanding job at providing unbiased facts. A think that you should elaborate on the HIV/AIDS section, and discuss why maybe transgender individuals do report higher rates of HIV/AIDS, social implications, etc. I also think that in some areas that are heavy on statistics, a summary of the findings might come across easier for a wider audience. Awesome job!!! --Kiarasanchez12 (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Bailey, great work so far! Your extensive statistics in this article really stood out to me! While you have been incredibly comprehensive, I hope others continue to expand on your subsections. For example, for your "Legal Rights" section, I hoped to also see a broader focus on federal legislation that hold bias against the rights of transgender individuals. Still, as others have said, this is well-written! jeanygina (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts prompted by the GA review[edit]

Hi Bailey. I have to say, this is well-researched, well-written, and immaculately sourced article. For a (relatively) new contributor, you have an excellent grasp of how to instill encyclopedic tone into your writing. I do have a thought or two on how the article might be further improved with regards to structure though. Although elucidation of the social and economic issues faced by transgender persons is a useful addition to the article that you've presented well here, speaking from a purely organization perspective, I think I would restructure the subject's integration into the article a little differently. Specifically I would avoid such a starkly dichotomous division of the sections; dividing the page into two separate sections as it stands seems a little on the ungainly side, and a little bit of an artificial divide, given the shared territory regarding inequalities that influence both groups. I'd like to present two potential alternative structures: /Proposed structure and /Proposed structure 2. The first of these simply moves some sections around, it would be vastly easier to implement, might suite your timetable better and preserves the current arrangement most. The second would take the integration one-step further by merging the content that is currently in the dual independent sections on economics, work life, pay gaps, education, and other common issues and leaving only the subsections that are unique to transgendered persons within that section. Though it would constitute a more substantial restructuring and a bit more work, I'm partial to the second approach, but either of these structures in that I feel they somewhat more solidly emphasize gender inequality as something of a feature of society collectively, rather than a concept primarily of relevance to certain gender identities. After-all, these are issues that effect all segments of American society, even if some groups have markedly more reason to be aware of it than others.

Either would also address another, very minor but still noteworthy issue - the use of the term cisgender in a main section header. Cisgender is a fairly academic term not broadly used outside of the social sciences, gender-equality advocacy, the transgender community and a handful of other contexts. The average Wikipedia editor might know it, and we can appreciate its clinical appeal, but as this very article points out, 30% of Americans don't even know what transgender means and it is a vastly more culturally disseminated term. Even the broad database that Wikipedia uses for spellchecking is failing to recognize the word even as I type this. I believe I can see your reasoning -- presumably you felt it was the best way to maintain parity between the discussion on transgendered persons and that on the disparities between men and women in general; that is, using the terms cisgender and transgender is a way to divide the structure of the article without relying on terms that you feel might imply a qualitative assessment as to what constitutes a "true" women. That's a completely understandable concern, but on Wikipedia we are meant to be using the most common-use and simple language which we can get away with; mind you it's not a major issue, as you define the term in the lead and it's not exactly an incredibly complex concept to get across its broadest sense, but if we can remove that ambiguity for the reader through an organizational change, and that change has other advantages, and still maintain the afore-mentioned parity, it might be worth doing. Anyway, I thought I would mention it to you as the one thing that stood out to me as I first looked at the article in a glance as a little unencyclopedic. For the record, I see the use of cisgender in the article in general as useful; it's only the application in a primary section header that I mean to examine with the above.

These are both relatively minor points, and this is your baby at present, so I'd just as soon leave any changes with regard to either to your discretion, but the suggestions are there, if you have any use for them. Snow (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Why do all issues in the article show females as the disadvantaged gender? There are many areas of life in the U.S. where males are at a great disadvantage (or victim of "gender inequality" as the article is titled).

Why is this article so biased; why is there no NPOV for this article?


2604:2000:7FC0:1:E8D7:5FA9:D5A4:AD1 (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gender inequality in the United States/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. 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:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]

  • "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)
  • "cisgender" should be linked in its first mention, not the second!
Fixed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • "In 2001, M. Margaret Conway," - is the initial 'M' her first name?
  • "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)
Fixed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • "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)

Second initial comments[edit]

  • 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)


  • 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)

On hold[edit]

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)

  • (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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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

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)
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)
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)

Close - not listed[edit]

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)

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)

Article is biased and fails to backup with facts and statistics a lot of statements made[edit]

For example the article says that women face "inequality" because there are more men than women in the government, how is this an issue? More men than women go into politics to start with, just like more women than men go into fashion for example or nursing etc. How is this an issue? The article also exemplifies that there are less women in the workforce, but fails to show how this is an issue in any way. More men choose to work and men choose to work more hours, how is this an issue? As for the male inequalities section there are ignored numerous issues. The sentencing gap - men receive longer sentences for the exact crimes women do, men being discriminated by the court bias in alimony as men make up 96% who pay alimony, child support where men make up the vast majority who have to pay child support, child custody - men receive child custody only 6%of times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gender inequality in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)