User talk:Nataliereid/sandbox

Hi Natalie!

Good job on a very important and relevant topic. My comments are: 1. Try, if possible, to make your tone a bit more impartial by emphasizing that these studies are claims and are not conclusive. Is there any literature that has criticized these studies or presented alternate viewpoints? 2. Instead of just saying "a study in xyz year", I would emphasize the institution or the researchers that conducted this study, because these are relatively new studies. 3. Could you add more links to other wikipedia pages within your text? 4. In your last sentence, you mentioned efforts to end race and gender discrimination within STEM fields. I'd like to see some examples of this or more detail about the source you cite, or perhaps a link to an article that could provide more information.

Best of luck! Madelinekowalski (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review for STEM addition

This is a good entry on a worthy subject. I echo the reccomendations of Madeline. In addition, the wording of the sentence A 2007 study showed that recommendation letters for chemistry faculty described men in terms of ability, such as “standout,” but referred to the work ethic of women, such as “grindstone,” reflecting gender bias.[1]    Is a bit awkward, in particular the bolded. In addition, research or claims comparing the level of gender discrimination in STEM to that in other fields could be a good addition. Also, the two paragraphs discuss subject matter that seems distinct enough to warrant them being in separate sections. JonGreenberger (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)