This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The article is well written and the author explains various perspectives of the situation convincingly. The suggestions are
The topic of each subsection should be clearer. For example, the title of the section "Transition (after 1990)" should include more specific detail. The reader might be confuse whether the section is talking about the transition of Russia from the Soviet Union to current Russia or the transition of gender pay gap.
Some sentences seem to contain author's personal opinion. For example, the first sentence which stated that gender pay gap in Russia is larger than other countries'. If it is a fact then reference should be provided.
Some pictures or graphics would improve the quality of the article.
If the more current data could be provided would be great (I understand that there might be a problem with limitation of the data provided).
Hi Off and thank you for your suggestions. I do have some problems with finding any pictures. It would be appropriate to insert some graphs with some statistics, but this would mean that pictures I would include are not my own, but from World Bank, which I'm afraid goes in contradiction with wikipedia policy. About the data: it is true I could not find more recent data, but I know it would be good to have them up to 2010 at least. If you have any suggestions about possible sources I would be very grateful. Corinabesliu1965 (talk 04:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an excellent new article. Well written, the documentation is strong and there are ample links to other Wikipedia articles. Here are a few questions for clarification and suggestions: 1)The Eurostat pay gap definition is not going to be comprehensible to most Wiki readers. You should define the pay gap in relation to the wage ratio (even if the two ways of defining amount to the same thing). Also, (a minor point, which you may or may not do something about) one column of the table is redundant, and the ratio data should precede the gap data. 2) provide citations: a) The first sentence of the Intro paragraph (I agree with Econkc); also be sure to add time dimension to that sentence (as of 2010?) b) End of last paragraph of the Intro (who thinks the transition is ongoing?); c)A few feminist economists--in the discrimination paragraph and also the first parag. under "Job Segregation" (only Blau et al, and Ogloblin are cited there). 3) The Intro is too long and detailed. Move some text from third paragraph of Intro to the Soviet Russia section. 4) Add a brief explanation of the argument at the end of the "Soviet Russia" parag. (Why?) 5)Two explanations needed: "Differential participation"--was this official policy or tolerated in practice? And "contradictory influences" on the wage gap--please explain how so. 6)Do you have any info on the childcare situation--is it now entirely provided through the market? This pertains to the goal of increasing women's LFPR, so should be on the policy agenda!BerikG (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I read your article again. I think it is a very well organized article. You even added an informative table. I think the organization is very clear. You have thirty reliable resources. The citation is done very carefully as well. As far as I know, it follows the Wikipedia style. I also liked how your sections are connected to each other concept wise, which help the reader to follow your argument. The subsections are helpful as well. The only thing I am not sure is, if you should insert the citation first and then add the period at the end of the sentence. This is a very good article! Orhand12 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Günseli and thank you Duygu for the feedback. I will make sure to make the necessary changes. Corinabesliu1965 (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)