User talk:Cardinal0205/sandbox

Hey, so I'm in your WGST class. I'm looking into gender pronouns and teaching gender to children. Nice to meet you and have a good day. --CRMStudent1 (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on article contribution[edit]

These comments are in no particular order:

In accordance with rather than in accordance to
I'm a bit confused about Yoon's conclusions about China. I know we talked about this, so maybe a few connective words are needed to help a reader make sense of the information. In particular, Yoon says women's employment rate is decreasing. However, several of the contributing factors might be expected to increase women's participation. For instance, abundant childcare services usually pushes toward higher employment for women as does higher education and the consequent postponing of family life. By the end, I'm unclear if leftover women are leftover because they don'thave families or because they don't have jobs.
For the Japan contribution, the conversation about Abenomix feels awkward. The researcher believes Abenomix represents a desire to remedy the effects of an aging population rather than a desire to promote gender equality. Evidence for this conclusion is the finding that women are entering the workforce in contingent positions (part time work at a company's whim). Women's participation rates do not seem to be influenced by government policies.
In both of the previous bullets, I have the sense that you need to get some distance from the original sources' language in order to enhance clarity. Try restating your contribution in your own words without feeling such a strong obligation to the original.
In the Jordan paragraph, "there remains to be no legislation on the issue" is awkward. There is no legislation aimed at gender equality in the workforce. In this instance as well, say what's needed in the simplest terms you can manage and still be true to the data.
I understand completely what you are saying about Singapore.
I have questions about South Korea. It's the relationships between clauses again that are confusing. Female employment increased as a result of women quitting their jobs to become pregnant --- later. Do you mean women are waiting longer before leaving the workforce to become pregnant? Putting "later" all the way at the end of the clause is confusing for a reader. The sentence gets processed one way and then that processing gets contradicted. In the last sentence, the first half says the gender gap decreased, and the last half says political empowerment declined. Those results seem like they would be unrelated. To process them quickly and accurately, a reader needs a transition such as, "on the other hand.'
In general, this is an ambitious and meaningful contribution. Refining syntax for maximum clarity will make it really shine.Jagrif02 (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]