User talk:FourthDegreeWorkerBee
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Louisville/Writing_in_Women's_and_Gender_Studies_(Fall_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, FourthDegreeWorkerBee, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Topics
[edit]Hi! I wanted to give you some input on the topics you have listed:
- The pink tax article would be the one I would most recommend editing, as this really needs a lot of work overall and as far as topics go, is still a notable issue. It's also going to be the easiest out of the trio for you to edit.
- The page on fraternities and sororities is fairly extensive and while it's not been awarded GA status, it's definitely more comprehensive than some of the others out there. As such, it's going to be more difficult to expand this article than it would be to edit the pink tax article or one of the pages in the fraternities and sororities stub articles category. (Category:Fraternity and sorority stubs) I'm not saying that you can't edit it, just to be aware that it will be harder to expand since the article is at the point where it's more trying to find the fine details that are missing without going into too specific of detail.
- You'd mentioned that the article on the gender pay gap in the United States is a GA nominee, however it looks like it was a nominee but failed. This means a few different things. The first is that like the prior article, the content that needs to be added will be more of the finer details. The second is that although this is definitely a concern to take into consideration with the article when it comes to your final choice, you can draw on the failed GA nominations since the reviewers will have mentioned what shortcomings exist in the article. You can see those here and here. However that said, keep in mind that these reviews are about 8 years old and as such, some or all of the notes won't be applicable anymore.
I hope that this all helps as far as considerations go! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)