Talk:Gender pay gap in the United States/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eustress (talk · contribs) 12:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for submitting this well-researched article to GAN. This is how it, as of December 15, 2011, stacks up against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: (Pending)

• Lead does not properly summarize the article's contents (WP:LEAD). Please revise.
• Change instances of passive voice to active voice; e.g., "It has been suggested that women...."
• Remove instances of editorializing (WP:EDITORIAL); e.g., "Of course, none of these assumptions applies in full...."
• Choose either "%" or "percent" and use throughout for consistency.
• Remove spaces in percentages in Impact on pensions section (e.g., "71 %" --> 71% or 71 percent).

2. Factually accurate?: (Pending)

• Article uses more than one citation style; i.e., footnotes and APA (WP:Cite#Citation_style). Please choose one.
• Article over-attributes authors. Some explicit mention of authors/sources can be helpful in establishing context; however, over-attribution disrupts readers and is not inline with the aims of an encyclopedia. For instance, "Studies by Michael Conway et al., David Wagner and Joseph Berger, John Williams and Deborah Best, and Susan Fiske et al. found.... Shelley Correll, Michael Lovaglia, Margaret Shih et al., and Claude Steele show that...." Please review.
• Full citations needed for Kleinfeld, 1999, and Kleinfeld, 2002.
• Full citation needed for New York Times 2008.
• Citations should follow punctuations (WP:CITEFOOT); e.g., "their male counterparts to receive equal credit[80] and that among grant applicants". Please reconcile throughout.
• Inline citations need to more directly support information in several instances. For instance, for the paragraphs starting, "For instance, David R. Hekman and colleagues (2009) found that men..." and "Stanford University professor Shelley Correll and colleagues...", it is very difficult to figure out which sources support which information. Please address.
• There are a few citation tags to address in the article (Maternity leave section).
• Resolve the dead links reported here.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: (Pending)

• Captions should not terminate with a period if they are not complete sentences (WP:CAP). Please revise.
• Explicit inline mention of the source in the caption for File:US Gender pay gap, by state.png is not needed since there is an inline footnote with information about the source. Please address.

My overarching concern is that this article reads like a research paper and not like an encyclopedia entry (WP:NOT). I'll put this GAN on hold for seven days and then reassess. Regards. —Eustress ^talk 13:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Article hasn't been touched in over 7 days, so this should be failed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Always a shame to complete a review when the nominator has gone AWOL. I've even emailed User:OttawaAC and have not received any response. The result of this GAN, therefore, is fail. I would dissuade any editors from renominating this article for GAN until the issues I've raised above are addressed. —Eustress ^talk 18:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)