Talk:Feminist economics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cupco (talk · contribs) 07:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I thought the prose looked unnecessarily convoluted and difficult in several places, so I tried automated readability scoring which resulted in estimated U.S. grade levels necessary for comprehension from 17 (postgraduate) to 24 (postdoctorate). An example sentence flagged as particularly difficult from the intro is: "These examinations include explorations of areas of traditional economic inquiry that have a particular relevance to women (for example, care work or occupational segregation) or phenomena poorly represented by existing models (for example, intra-household bargaining) and, the subsequent use of different forms of data collection, measurement (for example, the GEM as opposed to GDP), and interpretation (for example the use of the capabilities approach) to produce more gender-aware theories." Something needs to be done about readability. Update: I made about a zillion edits to address the readability issues in essentially every section with prose in it. Googling a couple dozen phrases selected at random from the text showed absolutely no evidence of copyright violations or close paraphrasing. Spelling is fine.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The layout is generally good. I removed a pair of empty level-five headers which were pushing their subsections to an unnecessary and ridiculous level six. I see no WP:WORDS but I'll take another look after getting some sleep. [Update: Y still good.] There are a couple of enumerated lists which don't need to be enumerated and don't need to be lists, but with four and five elements nobody can reasonably say that they detract from anything; in my opinion they break up the dense prose in a welcome fashion. There is a large unordered list of graduate programs at the end, which is fine because converting to prose would make it much worse. Why are books "Literature" but journals "Further reading"? I don't know and it didn't bother me, but I fixed it to conform to the Manual of Style anyway.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The lack of web links for a large number of citations is going to make verification of this article almost impossible for me. Could ISBNs be added to the book reference citations and DOIs or courtesy URLs if available be added to the journal sources, please? I will help with this while the review is on hold to the extent that I can, but I'm no expert in this area so I need help. I do not have easy access to a library likely to have many of these sources except on occasional weekends. Update: I was able to add courtesy or preview URLs to almost all of the references which lacked them, and in so doing I verified about a dozen cited statements without any issues. This satisfies me that the sourcing is adequate for GA status.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All potentially contentious material, statistics, and quotations are supported by citations to apparently reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I am withholding judgement on this until I am able to perform much more extensive verification per criterion 2a above. Update: There is no evidence of any original research in this article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good breadth as far as I can tell. I will double-check after the verification issues are addressed. Update: Y Coverage is fine per textbook sources.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I think the depth judgements are very good here. There are a handful of proper summary style sections.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I was going to ask that views critical of feminist economics be included, but to my astonishment I have been unable to find any examples of such after several minutes of searching. There are innumerable critiques of feminism but no critiques of feminist economics? That seems impossible to me. I will take another look at this tomorrow after getting some sleep. Update: essentially the only critique of any feminist economic concepts beyond hints of conference sessions that I could find was [1]. It's not much of a critique, but it answers the critiques which may or may not exist based on the conference session descriptions. I cited it in the OECD graph caption.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Dashboard and history are both clear of any hint of instability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All three images check out fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	"A Colombian domestic worker" could be any Latina in any kitchen; perhaps her caption can pull some facts explaining why she is pictured? Update: I enhanced her caption with a discussion of non-market labor. This article could really use some charts of things like wage disparity between men and women over time in the "Gendered macroeconomic variable" section, e.g. one or more of these graphs. This is not enough to prevent the article from attaining GA status per the strict criteria, and so I will not fail it if it's not done, but I feel quite strongly that such graphical information is crucial to the central theme of the article and would improve it immensely. Update: I added three graphs showing different aspects of the gender wage gap, which is central to the theme of the article. Breaking up the wall of text with their visual complexity helps very much, in my estimation.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold for two weeks to address the readability concern marked  On hold above. If it is addressed prior to that, please ping me on my talk page. —Cupco 00:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Update: Done! Pass! —Cupco 02:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)