User talk:CaitlinMarie59/sandbox

CaitlinMarie's Peer review by Aleslie
Your edits to the article has enabled your article to maintain the elements of a good Wikipedia article, it has a lead section that is easy to understand, it has a clear structure, balanced coverage, neutral content and reliable sources. Your citation to the definition of reverse sexism has helped maintain the neutrality of the article and clearly explain the topic. The citation impressed me because just looking alone at the lead paragraph your edit has enabled the reader to clearly understand what the topic is about. I haven’t found any redundancy in the article. The article does have a comprehensive structure, but I believe it may be able to be organized into sections. The final paragraph could be organized under the heading “history”. The viewpoints that may be missing from the article are the setting’s that reverse sexism may be found in. Potential topics for the setting may be Reverse sexism in the workplace- modeling (male models paid less, less used on runway than female) and nursing (-challenges for men in nursing). Explanation of reverse sexism in the workplace and what is being put in place to prevent it. This may allow the reader to understand that reverse sexism is found in society. The neutrality that you have helped create in the definition of your article is something that I will use as an example to reevaluate my article to help create that same neutrality in mine.Aleslie plu (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)