User:Rachelmg/sandbox

Evaluating Article and Sources

What are the statistics on the gender of those that apply to stay in the US on a student Visa under the optional practical training extension? Does that leave more men than women in US on this Visa.

Everything in the article seems to be relevant however the order of things seems to be very distracting, because I'm not really sure if it is supposed to be in some way alphabetical or in some unknown order that doesn't seem to make sense. Some parts make it seem like it is just in order of importance which would be a problem with the women category on the bottom but if its supposed to be in alphabetical order than I have no idea why the order is the way it because it is not in alphabetical order.

The article is not neutral, it is very much in the male perspective choosing to talk about the racial gap but not the gender gap until the very last section which combines it with the Women section. They even reference a separate article for women in STEM which is fine because it has a more in-depth history however they did not do the same for men in STEM. Also the fact that they have a very separate category for Women in general shows bias that women are a main part of it. I would have to say that women and gender are very underrepresent in an article that has a history heavily involved in gender bias.

The links do work to the few citations I checked out of the total 66 citations. All the sections seem to have sources that are cited. The sources do appear to support the claims in the article. The articles are bound to be biased because of the nature of the subject because it is thought of as a male field.

It is hard to tell weather or not the information is out of date because it talks about when the programs were started. The article talks about Boy Scouts and how they decided to incorporate STEM into there curriculum however they did not mention Girl Scouts at all. Which really shows that bias and I think defiantly needs to be added in. The jobs section seems to be very lacking in examples of possible careers that one could go into in the STEM field the article alludes to STEM career fields but does not specify any which is problematic for people doing research. As stated above the women are only mentioned at the end and should have been mentioned through out, it is like they didn't want to present women as being involved in the main STEM page and created another one to talk about them entirely. They also left the gender gap issue out completely choosing to create a section entirely about the racial gap and however important it is only talks about a faction of those facing issues by leaving out the gender. They however did include somethings about the gender gap in the women section at the bottom but it really should be its own category. I also feel that the information on NASA should be elaborated on as it is only once sentence.

On the talk page people talked about how the article was US centric which has been address. They also talked about how there is a separate page for specifically women history in STEM however it is included in a section in this article. There is also a discussion of weather to add STEAM to the list of acronyms and how it is not important enough to have its own page because they can just add the A for art. There was also mention that the introduction is confusing and needs to be rewritten which is true.

The article has not been rated yet. It is part of the Education, Science, engineering, technology and mathematics Wikiprojects.