Talk:Gender inequality in Thailand

Links to this article from other Wikipedia articles
In order to get feedback on your article and get traffic to your article you need to place links in related Wikipedia articles to your article. This may entail adding a sentence (in appropriate places of another Wikipedia article) that uses the title of your article. In this sentence you need to put your article's title in  for it to be linked to yours. BerikG (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advise. I have created the link to this article in several article such as Feminism in Thailand, Women in Thailand and Gender inequality. Hopefully there will be some feedback soon.

Econkc (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Employment segregation section
The list of industries where men are concentrated needs clarification. First, this list includes not only industries but also occupations. You should remove occupations, and talk about them separately. By "concentration," labor economists mean a high proportion of men are employed in these sectors (e.g. 20% of men are in x sector; 17% are in y sector, such that 3 or 4 sectors account for more than say 50% of men's employment). But, in this case this is not possible since you have a long list of industries. So, you may be referring to % female in a sector (e.g. in construction women account for x % of employment). Also, the lists are not all that useful without some specific information. For example, you can say "The top employers of men are x, y, and z sectors, which employed w % of men in Thailand in ." OR "Men constituted more than 50% of sector employment  in x, y, and z sectors in ." Also, when there are two categories and you refer to say 30 % of men are in the informal sector, then you don't need to also say 70% are in the formal sector. BerikG (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. I have include the number of men and women workers as a percentage of the total employment in each industry. Your suggestion about the terms "industry" and "occupation" although does make sense, the data gathered from the source provided use the term "industry" for all of the sections presented. Since I do not know in detail of how they consolidate the occupation data into each "industry" (as they called), I think it would be more appropriate to refer to these data with the same terminology they used.

Econkc (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Feedback
This new article provides a useful overview of gender inequalities in Thailand, by mostly focusing on the labor market. The citations and links to other wikipedia articles are appropriately made. However, there are a number of places where the interpretations need your attention: 1) In the Intro section, you need to decide what the evidence in the article points to: are disparities growing or decreasing since the 1960s with structural change? In the Intro section you first say they have increased, and then end by saying with modernization they decreased. This inconsistency could be the result of changes in different directions depending on the dimension one focuses on. But if so, you need to identify which dimensions you have in mind. 2) In the employment segregation section you end by identifying a few sectors(occupations) that have a high % of men (and then women) and then conclude "This implies that occupational choice was more limited for women than for men." You can only conclude this if you had evidence that indicated a very high % of women are employed in 2 or 3 occupations vs. a much smaller % of men are employed in 2-3 occupations. But you have not presented such evidence. 3) In the gender wage differentials section you say "The gender wage inequality contributes to an increase in total disparity in income between men and women even after the differences in education, work experience and location are controlled for." There are two different ideas here that are lumped into a sentence. If there is wage inequality, since most people are wage workers, it would follow that this would result in income inequality between women and men. But then you seem to be referring to discrimination (if there is a gap that is unexplained by qualifications). Please rewrite. 4) Another confusing sentence is "The gender wage differentials in Thailand declined in the early 1990s and changed little after the 1997 Asian financial crisis with the main source of the differentials being discrimination." Here there are two ideas: decline in wage gap over time, and discrimination being the main source of the wage gap at a given point in time. Again, write two sentences here. Also, while you say there was little change after 1997, then you indicate a rise in the ratio from 72 to 80 percent, which is a major change. 5) "Men with work experience receive significantly higher wages than women with the same work experience. This implies gender inequality in the labor market." If the first sentence is accurate, then this implies gender wage discrimination. (Inequality≠discrimination)BerikG (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your comments in detail. I have edited all of the parts that you mentions and hope that I have made the sentences clear enough. I have also made some adjustments in the two parts that there were required for clarification. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve the article.

Econkc (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Gender inequality in Thailand is a good Wikipedia paper according to Wikipedia critique standards. Its first paragraph offers a useful and clear overview of the topic to the reads. The whole paper focuses on a clear topic which is Gender inequality in labor market in Thailand. The paper considers a lot of updated references and offer detailed and appropriate scholarly support to the claims. The paper is readable, and its points are neutral too. --Kerensun (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Komson! I read your article again. I think the organization is good. You divided your argument into sections and the first section involves sub-sections as well. I did not have any problems comprehensive wise. I also thought your tone during the entire article is neutral; i.e., you give the information you give to the reader is presented as mere facts. There are 28 sources but these sources are also reliable. The citation also follows the Wikipedia format. The only thing I am not sure is whether you should have put the periods after the citation, instead of before citation. The photos also are very interesting. Orhand12 (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. According to the existing article, the citation should be placed after the periods.

Econkc (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at University of Utah supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)