User:96.18.171.104/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Everything in the article appeared to be on the topic of the social construction of gender. The most distracting things I noticed were a few grammatical errors or clunky sentences. I recall reading a "to" where a "the" should have been. I also recall reading about some theory which felt really unclear which needs some work - the criticism of Martha Nussbaum of Butler at the end of the political potential and limits. There were quite a few sentences which felt thrown in there, but were needed. Specifically, I recall some concepts in the social change section near the end of the article which felt reasonable but weren't cited (mostly claims about the movements of feminism).
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

I was surprised to find nothing in the gender roles section and wondered how one might flesh that section out. Would a brief description of roles and statuses be required?

Whenever I hear Nature vs. Nurture, my skepticism is immediately piqued. That last section I would argue is not needed at all. There are too many misconceptions about this idea already. This section does little to illuminate the nuanced interaction between the two realms in terms of the social construction of gender. Nothing immediately jumped out to me as particularly biased, but referring to the talk page I see that this has been addressed in the past. I did notice that much of the article is worded in ways such as "authors X & Y claim the social construction process happens by..." rather than simply stating that social construction is categorically one way or the other. So, I appreciated that.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The only other thing that really stood out was that a lot of the work used as evidence is highly central to Western society but there are few mentions of this. It makes the article somewhat feel as if it's talking for all parts of the world without reminding the readers that this is true for Western societies or the U.S. I would like to have more contextualization of the evidence. Example: Lorber found in the midwest U.S. that gender was constructed via... Admitting my own ignorance here, it was hard for me to tell. I'm relatively new to the field. However! I did notice that the work of West and Zimmerman was highly relied upon. If their work is prolific and merits this dependence, then that's a good thing! Each of the cited sources I followed up with appeared to support the general claims that were made in the article. Exploring the talk page I saw a few editors had caught some misleading uses of the work of West and Zimmerman so I was pleased to see that. It also provided a good example of what out of context or inappropriate sourcing looks like. For the most part, the facts I saw stated were supported by appropriate reference materials. However, there were some places such as the section on social change and at least one other which I remember bugging me in regards to how little the claims were supported or how uninspired some of the descriptions were.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Most of the sources appear to be works produced by sociological researchers which are presented in a way which neither illuminates nor disguises the biases they might have. Often I read statements about gender in terms of who had described them and what conclusions they drew which satisfied me in their neutrality. What I did not see was a robust section exploring dissenting work or where the theoretical frameworks are limited in describing the social construction of gender. There was a section however which touched on how the lines between research and activism can be blurred. I wonder if there can be more work done there. Admitting my ignorance, nothing appeared terribly out of date. However, I did notice that most sources I pulled up were published in the 90s. I would love to bring in more recent work if not already there. There is talk of some fixing of mechanics, suggestions for editing, and other questions of content worthy of inclusion/deletion. I also noticed some great work addressing misrepresented ideas using the wrong work to cite which got cleared up. One topic is literally titled "This Page is a Mess". Some folks suggested using a merger to partially solve some of the problems presented.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is rated as C-class for the three WikiProjects it is associated with: Feminism, Gender Studies, and LGBT studies.