Feedback on article contribution
editComments are in no particular order:
- Think about the work that the word, "only" does. Can you get along without it? You use the alternative, "disadvantage" elsewhere very effectively.
- Double check capitalization.
- Do women publish less research than men when we take their underrepresentation into account? Is there a way to phrase this statement that strengthens it by anticipating responses that might explain it away?
- number of citations - plural
- This sentence needs attention, but I'm not sure what you want to do: Their study shows that when women publish their research in journals with high impact factors, yet they receive fewer citations from the engineering community.
- This sentence seems to be standing out alone in the field: Women receive less credit for work coauthored with men. - By what measure? Fewer citations? So women get more citations when authoring with women?
- More generally, I'm confused about the relationship of the section that begins with "in economics" to the rest of the paragraph. Is there a distinction being made between econ and engineering? Is there a transition word that would make the relationship visible for a reader? Should she anticipate a contrast or a continuation, for example? -
- female economists - plural
- I read this last section again - about economists. I still want a transition from engineering, but I think I see the gist of its findings. The bottom line is - when women coauthor with men in economics, their contributions are less highly valued than when they coauthor with other women or by themselves. Is that it? If so, look at how you might revise this section because it took me three reads, and you won't get that many with most Wikipedia readers.
- Overall, a useful contribution and a good job incorporating some of the ideas we discussed in conference about tone.21:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)