User talk:Kcampos06/sandbox

Peer review: What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

The article throurougly explains and examines the term sexism and the ways it is used, misused, and defined.

I am impressed at the depth you went into and how you referenced the terms "patriarchy" and "masculinity", which could enrich the meaning of sexism to those new to the concept and ideologies that are common in women's studies and feminist readings.

Something I would change would be to take out the first part, "The word “sexism” is often misunderstood; individuals use the word “sexism” in many different ways and often use it interchangeably to describe different situations (e.g. gender prejudice, gender discrimination, etc.) even if the term is not the appropriate to use. In order to talk about sexism in academia, people need to understand first and foremost what sexism really means. " This is a really well-written part that would fit at the beginning of an essay on sexism, but I don't feel as though it fits the style of Wikipedia which dives more quickly into definition and explaining and requires no formal introduction.

Rarober4 (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)