Talk:Working parent

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2018 and 20 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michsm. Peer reviewers: Jceccarelli04.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 8 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maoyi.95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality
Does anyone have any concerns that they'd like to share with the rest of us? As it stands, the article is almost entirely sourced to directly-supporting reliable sources. I'd be happy to consider that a school of expert thought has been overlooked, but I've removed the "essay" and "original research" tags pending the appearance of injustly-omitted academic research. FourViolas (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the POV tag, as no one responded with any concerns. ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Working parent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160304071301/http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/LMF_1_6_Gender_differences_in_employment_outcomes.pdf to http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/LMF_1_6_Gender_differences_in_employment_outcomes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

lead review
neutrality notification
 * Intro sentence is too wordy and needs to be cleaned up grammatically.
 * Delete or their own needs from second sentence.
 * Final sentence establishes the intent to center on "gender inequality" for working parents.

Historic viewpoint review

 * Extremely weak reference to television in the 1950's and 60's.
 * Entire section is subjective.
 * Lacks easily found statistics from the time period that would provide a better representation than comment about television and and extremely opinionated final sentence almost an insult. The entire sentence is unnecessary and weak
 * Re: "Men went to work to earn money...The gender inequalities that are reflective" The reference to "gender" inequalities is inappropriate in context of this. In the 1960's and early 70's the discussion was around "work value" inequalities - with people lobbying to have housework treated with the same level of respect as paid work. Beldings (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)beldings

Motherhood Penalty Fatherhood Bonus

 * Last sentence needs a citation.
 * I would like a current statistic to back up the hemogenic masculinity statement, perhaps comparing not only to working mothers but also men that don't fit the mold.
 * The entire section feels subjective and unsubstantiated. Needs statistical support.

Working Mothers

 * Entire section needs editing and grammatical revision. Mostly relevant information and interesting comparisons with European.
 * Consider breaking up information into time period and region.

Mommy Wars

 * Unnecessary, poorly worded and irrelevant.

Working Father? Gay Parent?

 * This article should either be titled working mother, or a sub-section should be added shining a light on the working father and possible obstacles/challenges they face.
 * Insight on Homosexual parents, either in a relationship or not, would also be an interesting sub-section to research.

Structure

 * Article flow is confusing, grammatically inconsistent and poorly structured. Working mothers could be broken down better.
 * Motherhood Penalty section should come after historic viewpoints.

Let's change the name to Household gender inequality
Beyond the initial paragraph, this is either a well-written piece about the history of household gender inequalities, or a highly biased agenda-driven piece about the history of working parents. Rather than attempt to re-write it in an appropriately impartial historical construct, it might be easier to simply change the title. Beldings (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)beldings