User:Peytonbrock/Glass escalator/Mcunningham11 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * peytonbrock
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Glass escalator

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead lacks an introductory sentence as it just introduces the term glass escalator. Overall, the Lead contains viable information for the overall article, but the types of jobs should be listed in it. Other than that, this section appears to be good and length and covers most of the article's topics.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content is all relevant to all of the article and is up-to-date. A possible addition would be an overview of the history of the gender s in each f the jobs listed and why they are known as a female-dominant profession.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added in this article is neutral. Most of the added content expands on the theory of the glass escalator and has a non-biased tone throughout the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Some of the studies and works used as a reference for this article is dated back to 1992, Christine L. Williams article, but overall, the information is up to date and has been pubished in the 21st century. The links in the reference section have all worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article's organization is okay but shifting some paragraphs around will definitely help. I would move the "negative aspects" paragraph down past the "Men in Teaching" paragraph so that the article goes smoothly from "Types of Jobs" straight to "Men in teaching".

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the content added to the article has improved the article's depth in the subject matter and has made the article more complete. Looking forward, some ways the article could be more complete is to introduce a different study for the sake of an alternative view point.