Talk:The Myth of Mars and Venus

Mihailooo02 (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
LEAD EVALUATION: Overall, I think the lead is good. It has one sentence which describes the original book and another that describes the response that this article covers. However, I would challenge Mostafa to expand on this. I think something good and useful would be a sentence or two that put all of this into perspective. Why is the second author replying? How did the first book come to be, in what context? Same with the second one?

CONTET EVALUATION: Overall, the content as it stands right now is decent. There appears to be a short paragraph which is concise and well written that talks about the main things that Cameron argues in favor of and outlines the main things she is against. There is another sentence which outlines some of the main takeaways from the book as well as its conclusion. This is all nicely written too.

However, there is a big gap between the conclusion and the previous paragraph which really just talks about some of the authors main viewpoints. It feels like the article lacks substance here. What is the plot of the book? What are its other contents? What are some of the specific examples in which Cameron attempts to rebut the views held by the author who she is responding to? How does the book begin? What is the context behind it? These are all some of the questions that I believe would be useful to keep in mind as Mostafa keeps working on this.

TONE AND BALANCE EVALUATION Both the tone and balance appear good. I would advise you to try to keep them as they are. You are doing a great job!

Only negative here is that I do feel the core substantive parts of the book are underrepresented.

SOURCES AND REFERENFCES EVALUATION I think that the two sources Mostafa has so far are relevant and current. However, a couple of issues here are that the second sentence in the lead and the first paragraph in the details subsection lack a citation. If these are Mostafa's interpretations, those are nice, and I applaud his understanding of the work, but to my understanding Wikipedia demands citations for these things so Mostafa will have to find published interpretations of this work that confirm his understanding of the same. Hence a good course of action would be to expand the references list, possibly by looking into other authors' interpretations of Cameron's work! The links appear to be working fine, and the sources are relevant, like I mentioned. They do not involve minority authors, so perhaps trying to get this in too would be nice.

ORGANIZATION EVALUATION Nothing too crazy to say here. Everything looks fine. I would just take a little extra care about the particular style of your writing, but other than that, grammar and everything syntax-wise looks good.

IMAGES AND MEDIA EVALUATION Everything here looks good. I would challenge Mostafa to possibly go ahead and add a few more pictures just to further enhance the reader's understanding of the book, but other than that, the image added is good, well-captioned, adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and is presented in a visually appealing way.

FOR NEW ARTICLES ONLY EVALUATION The article links to gender studies and it follows the patterns of other small articles - which is great. However, it has some issues here. First, it does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements - i.e., it is not supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. This is one thing Mostafa needs to work on, finding more reliable secondary sources. Second, the list of sources is not exhaustive, it only includes primary sources - the two books. Hence, one thing that I would challenge Mostafa to do is to go ahead and find secondary sources and interpretations of the book(s) he is writing about. This will help make his article stronger.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS Overall, the article is good. It does a good job of delineating - in clear and concise language - some of the key takeaways of this book. However, some of the main things I would like to see improved on are adding more sources as well as adding more substance to the article. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RoseanneM14.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abdemo0912. Peer reviewers: ThienLe17, Mihailooo02, Morgan such, Avillalobostovar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Bias in the article
I balanced the idea that the author denied any differences, with the publishers own assertion that the "linguistic differences there are between men and women are driven by the need to construct and project personal meaning and identity".

It is an NPOV violation (and by the way, simply dishonest), to say otherwise. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

What is she really saying?
I leafed through an extract in The Guardian, and she doesn't really seem to be saying that sex differences in speech don't exist. In the extract, she makes two interesting points: She complains that men are wielding too much power and using the theory of "Mars and Venus" differences to justify things like (a) avoiding housework or (b) having more interesting or higher paying jobs.
 * 1) There isn't enough research proving that women talk more than men
 * 2) There is no proof at all that differences between men and women, such as those asserted to exist in speech, are biologically inherent (as opposed to, say, socially constructed)

Please don't copy and paste the above, into the article, until it has been double-checked. ---Uncle Ed (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)