User talk:Axhara16/sandbox

Lead/Intro: The lead was good, I like that you first started with just a general statement and then showed examples immediately after. The one thing I would say is maybe talk about the "glass ceiling" and "glass escalator" together and then go into examples of both of them. That will help show the both sides at once and show the inequality more.

Structure: I thought the structure was great, every paragraph and sentence flowed well into the next one.

Balance: The usage of sources and defining words were good in giving more information to different parts of the article. Maybe one thing you can try to do is talk about men in the workplace a little bit more. It doesn't have to be a lot since most inequality is more towards women, but I think if you do more what you did in the first paragraph (where you talked about both men and women) it could make your writing more dynamic. I like that you added the stuff about transgender people; if you can find more sources on the topic, maybe you can add information to it.

Neutral Content: You focus a lot more on the women side then men, which is not bad at all, but again you might want to think about adding a little more about men so you can show that comparison between genders more. Your article for the most part reads as unbiased, but adding that content might help it even more.

Sources You have a lot of sources, which I think adds a lot of validity to your article.

Plan Change and revise: Expand the glass elevator and glass ceiling as well as the transgender section that was added by the original author. Find new sources or read old sources and expand the current information. Add: Adding sources on men in the workplace (is there a double bias? How are men treated? How is this different?) Next Step: Find the new sources, add the new information. Expand the paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axhara16 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Feedback on draft
Alyssa: As we talked about in class, this is a clearly written and detailed addition to the article. It all flows well. You could add a bit more detail about your third source so that the reader understands a little more what the original source says, but overall well done. Mbrzycki (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)