User talk:Ivy&Fern2003/Women in government

Help!
I'm mainly looking for feedback/help on the second half of my article. I worry that if I start to talk about the supply barriers too much it strays away from the political recruitment model and into a whole other page on political ambition/supply and demand stuff that's also briefly mentioned in the women in government wiki page. What do you think? Does it seem relevant/should I put more work into adding detail to those sections? Thanks! Ivy&#38;Fern2003 (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review
Great draft! I think you cover the most important parts of the political recruitment model, while also keeping the article concise and clear. I also appreciate your broad range of sources! I think the lead could include a more thorough explanation of the model so people could have a sense of what it is before they move onto the body. Like I said in the feedback document, I think some of the content from the Political Recruitment Model Description section could be moved to the lead. I think your organization makes sense (this is a hard topic to break into sections), but I think you could also consider splitting up the sections based on each stage of the model. In that section you could define the stage, talk about barriers for women, how that effects women’s likelihood of moving to the next stage, and the implications of the disparity between men/women in that stage. I know this might be a little confusing because women drop off between stages, so that might be difficult to explain. If you end up keeping the current organization, I think you could move the content you have under “Barriers to Becoming an Elected Official” under political ambition, and then spend some time discussing voter bias and political party gatekeepers under the barriers section. You mentioned that you are concerned of straying away from the topic when you discuss supply, but I don’t think that’s an issue. I think all the info you have on supply is necessary, and I would just suggest adding a bit more on demand. I agree that spending too much time on these topics might distract from the topic, but I do think they are necessary to explain because they are part of the model! Gpol643 (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Overall Impressions
Overall, I think the article needs more work. There is a great foundation to work from but the organization and sectioning of certain sections need some work. If these are fixed, I think that the author can dive deeper into some of the reasons why women fdo not move past the aspirant stage as often men and why they are less elected than men. A great strength of the article is extremely informational and does not impart any personal or scholarly biases. I really like section on supply and demand but I think there is a lot of emphasis on supply and demand is pushed off to then side with one sentence. Because readers may just scan through the article, I think section supply and demand into two separate subsections, the article will be clearer and make it easier to read. I think the article is underdeveloped. Many of the bigger themes are present in the current draft of the article, however, there is much room for more specificity to make the article complete.

~

Shayna Finkel Sefinkel (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)