User:Chacha2019/Female education in STEM/Pennyseilyon Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Chacha2019

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Chacha2019/Female education in STEM
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Female education in STEM

Evaluate the drafted changes

Hi Chacha2019! Here is my peer review for your addition to female education in STEM.

Lead

There were no changes to the lead.

Content

You have developed the 'Factors influencing girls' and women's participation and achievement in STEM education' section of the article which I think is a great addition. I think the changes you made to the existing 'societal' section helped with readability and that your additions were valuable to the topic.
You added this: "Additionally, in some countries there were more women receiving computer science degrees than men^[1]. That was primarily because a computer science degree was seen as indoor work. When the job title was adjusted to sound less masculine and more geared towards relationship building, females appeared to be more likely to enter the STEM field" to the lead for this section before this sentence from the existing article: "Gender stereotypes portrayed in the media are internalized by children and adults and affect the way they view themselves and other. Media can perpetuate or challenge gender stereotypes about STEM abilities and careers.^[2]" However, I think that your addition may be better placed at the end of the lead, or perhaps in a different subsection altogether. I think the information is perhaps too specific and the transition feels a little bit unnatural because the rest of the information is more general.
There were no changes made to the subsection 'Effects of gender disparities.' I think that there could be significant improvements to this section from the current version of the article. There are some problematic elements in regard to readability/bias. For instance: "Stepping into a workplace where men outnumber women knowing that male co-workers expect lower capabilities from a woman working significantly causes women to undermine their skills and performance in their job. This in part is due to the representativeness heuristic- when people do not look the part, others are more critical of them." I think there are instances of unnecessary jargon that is not explained or linked, like "fixed mindset" and "representativeness heuristic" and it feels like it is written from a female point of view (e.g. "stepping into a workplace...").
- Basically, I think that a total overhaul of this section would be a great contribution, but I'm not sure if you were planning on editing this section.
In your added section "possible solutions to reduce gender gap," you created a bullet point list with 3 items. I'm not sure, but I think there would be better readability if this was written in paragraph form with a bit more information added for each point.
I think it would be good to link "Problem-Based Learning (PBL)" to the wiki.

Tone and Balance

The content you added is neutral. The entire article is on an under-represented group.

Sources and References

This section "effects of gender disparities" lacks citations. There is only one citation at the end of the section which is for "The Effects of Construal Level on Heuristic Reasoning: The Case of Representativeness and Availability" by João N. Braga, Mário B. Ferreira, and Steven J. Sherman. I feel as if this section is entirely based on this one source. I'm not sure if you were planning on working on this part from the current version of the article, but I think it would be a helpful fix. :-)
You added a subsection called "possible solutions to reduce gender gap" - I don't think it is necessary to add the "(based on several research studies that have been conducted in the past decade)" because there are citations to prove this.

Your sources are up to date.

Organization

Your content is well written and clear.
I think that the subsection you added on possible solutions is in a good location. Like I noted above, I think this section would feel better/more organized if it was in paragraph form instead of bullet point.

Overall impressions

Overall, I think this is a good start. I think there is some work to be done in improving the current article in the section that you chose and also adding some information/reshuffling, but your citations look good and I think your additions are helpful.

- Penny

^ El-Hout, Mona; Garr-Schultz, Alexandra; Cheryan, Sapna (2021-01). "Beyond biology: The importance of cultural factors in explaining gender disparities in STEM preferences". European Journal of Personality. 35 (1): 45–50. doi:10.1177/0890207020980934. ISSN 0890-2070. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Beasley, Maya (Summer 2012). "Why they leave: the impact of stereotype threat on the attrition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors". Social Psychology of Education. 15 (4): 427–448. doi:10.1007/s11218-012-9185-3. S2CID 2470487.

[1] El-Hout, Mona; Garr-Schultz, Alexandra; Cheryan, Sapna (2021-01). "Beyond biology: The importance of cultural factors in explaining gender disparities in STEM preferences". European Journal of Personality. 35 (1): 45–50. doi:10.1177/0890207020980934. ISSN 0890-2070. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[2] Beasley, Maya (Summer 2012). "Why they leave: the impact of stereotype threat on the attrition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors". Social Psychology of Education. 15 (4): 427–448. doi:10.1007/s11218-012-9185-3. S2CID 2470487.

[1]

[2]