Talk:Racial pay gap in the United States/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 19:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I will review this. However, considering Male–female income disparity in the United States and Income inequality in the United States, I wonder if this page is named correctly and has the proper redirects pointing to it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being willing to review this article! I titled it "Racial wage gap in the United States" because that is the term used in the majority of the literature I have read on the topic. Scholars talk of racial income disparities, but in my research I most often encountered this concept under the term "wage gap." Do you find this to be a sufficient reason for its name, as long as it has the proper redirects (which it does not yet have)? KiaraDouds (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You should talk with WT:ECON and have them come to a consensus. Maybe they could comment right here. If not, a consensus on their talk is fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll add something to the discussion there and see what they say. KiaraDouds (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I brought the name up on WT:ECON on November 18, but no one has responded. Any suggestions?KiaraDouds (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I see I was beat to this review again. Ok, just like I did for Talk:Male–female income disparity in the United States/GA1, here's my few cents. 1) not enough blue links. One in the lead, less than ten in the article? Wikification badly needed. 2) Per MoS, decapitalize headings. 3) Stubby sections like "Geographic Inequalities" (decap.) need expansion or merger 4) Please link to sources uses, journal articles and governmental papers usually have a stable url. Books have a Google Book link. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur that wikification is badly needed. Special terms should be linked. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, more blue links have been added. Headings are capitalized properly. Source links are in the works. What would you suggest for the geographic inequalities section? There's not much out there relating it to the racial wage gap. KiaraDouds (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD
 * Wages, Slavery in the United States, Discrimination in the United States, etc. should be linked.
 * Not sure what absolute and percentages are referring to in the second paragraph.
 * Male–female income disparity in the United States and Income inequality in the United States seem to be worth mentioning. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are links to both topics in the "See also" section. Did you mean that they should be mentioned in the article as well? KiaraDouds (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Causes
 * "When education between groups becomes more equal, wage gaps decrease." s/b "When education of different groups becomes more equal, wage gaps decrease." --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "In this way employee channeling," needs a comma after waay. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Changes made. KiaraDouds (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Link all notable authors, such as Mary Daly, that you mention in the text. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mary Daly is not the same Mary Daly that authored the article I cited. I asked this in regard to the comment below, but is providing a link to the article in the reference section a way to make up for the fact that these authors do not have their own pages? Most articles give a brief description of the authors' positions and credentials. KiaraDouds (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Black
 * The following is a bit redundant: "Progress resumed in the 1990s, with a decrease in the wage gap of .59 percent each year." vs. "During the 1990s, the black-white wage gap decreased .60 percent per year." --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Hispanic section begins with "The Hispanic minority group in the United States, composed of 50.3 million individuals in 2010". This section should have a similar statement. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Both are changed. KiaraDouds (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like both of these concerns remain unaddressed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the first point. That is now fixed. The second suggestion is addressed in the sentence "Black Americans now number 36 million, 12.9% of the total population." I did not add it to the beginning of the section because it begins with the history the history of the black-white wage gap. I added it to the beginning of discussion concerning the current black-white wage gap. KiaraDouds (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This does not seem right. The Asian and the Hispanic section begin with a clear statement on the current demographics. The Black section should begin the same way, IMO. Please reconsider this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the demographics at the beginning would make for more concise reasoning, rather than giving background in a story like format before the numbers are presented. --EliFlo27 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My reasoning for not placing that information at the beginning is the difference between the sections. The black section begins with the history and how the Civil Rights Act has affected the wage gap. This is unlike the other race sections. Thus, I feel as if putting current demographic information beginning the black section would be out of place. I feel that the section would no longer flow chronologically. KiaraDouds (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hispanic
 * Is there any effect that might support a claim that Hispanic wages are depressed due to employers feeling that their investment in training Hispanic employees might evaporate upon deportment for fake papers otherwise illegal status. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have tried many different ways of searching for this information, but I have not been able to find any information relating to your question. KiaraDouds (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We can only summarize sources here. So if there are no sources, you have done your job.


 * Asian
 * Also need a statement of the size and composition.
 * I thought the Koreans were a significant part of the Asian demographic and you don't mention them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First is done. My source for information concerning the asian-white wage gap is from 1995 (I could not find anything more recent). According to the National Association of Korean Americans, the Korean population rose greatly from the 1990 to 2000 census (http://www.naka.org/resources/). Perhaps this is why they were not mentioned in the study I used. I have not been able to find any information from legitimate sources concerning the Korean American population's income. KiaraDouds (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * American Indian
 * What percentage of this group now derive their income from gaming?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have researched this question and have been unsuccessful in finding the answer. I did find this report: http://www.indiangaming.org/library/studies/1004-erg_98rept_to_ngisc.pdf; However, the closest it gets to answering your question is the discussion of how unemployment rates have changed, information which I think is outside the scope of the article. KiaraDouds (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Private vs. public sector
 * "a $3.65 difference per hour was found between blacks and whites in the private sector, a 34 percent difference.[11] In contrast, a smaller difference of $2.85 per hour was found in the public sector, a 21 percent difference." suggest that public sector pays higher than private sector. Are your numbers correct? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are the numbers and percentages given by the study: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/99-28.pdf KiaraDouds (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you been linking notable authors of studies throughout? Who is Butler? Is Heckman James Heckman? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Limitations and criticisms of the racial wage gap
 * I have linked the authors that have Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, I will be shortly adding links in the references. As these links will take one to the article, does this make the fact that not all authors are linked ok? KiaraDouds (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

has not contributed to wikipedia since November 26. If I have left a message on his/her talk page stating that if he/she does not respond here by December 15 this nomination will close as a fail unless someone else steps forward to address these concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest you fail this now. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * She has responded on the 12th and I replied on the 16th. There are just a few issues (one each in the Black and Hispanic sections as mentioned above) remaining.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am passing this article. I think there are many ways to improve it, but it meets the criteria at WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I passed this too quickly. All the references need to have the bare urls cleaned up. I am reversing my pass until those are cleaned up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The references were changed into correct formatting. KiaraDouds (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PASS finally.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)