Talk:Nancy Fraser

Untitled
The research section is vague and contains language unintelligible to people outside of critical theory. The second paragraph is heavily NPOV; it casts Fraser as ultra-reasonable without attributing that position to an external source. Instead, the article buttresses Fraser's credibility with a few sentences of accolades.

The article should be written so as to introduce Fraser's notable research, in a way that is legible to the uninitiated. I would do it if I could. Acone (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)