This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gender Inequality Index article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
I am in the process of creating this page for an economics course at the University of Utah. Any questions or suggestions are welcome. Teashias (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
One critique I have, is I am guessing that Dr. Berik will want you to tie this into the class. Why does it matter? How does it related to gender econ? Your organization looks really great. All of the sections and sub sections make it easy to read and find what you’re searching for. One thing I think could be added is the possibility of data being skewed due to bias or confounding. Hmorris3 —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC).
Hi Teashia, I think the concepts you are discussing in your article can be elaborated more, specifically the following. Under your heading, "Mix Indices", you wrote that one of the issues/concerns with this measurement is that it "lacks transparency", and using arthemetic mean of ratio is stated as a problem by you. I guess you can further explain these terms for the readers, so they can fully comprehend, why they are problem? In your heading "Regional Relevance", you wrote that "robust to alternative specifications of gender-related indicators", again i feel you can shed more light on this, so reader don't have to guess what you mean by it. Under "Choice of variable", you have mentioned "unpaid work", and you have stated that GII ignores unpaid work, and that's why it is unable to fully capture the gender disparities. I think you can talk about gender division of labor here, which will make your point more clear to readers. Because one can ask, how gender disparities will be captured more optimally if unpaid work is included in GII, how it makes difference? Overall I think your article is very well organized and written. You have done a good job:) Dkhan2012 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Dkhan2012
Overall the format and flow are nice and the small sections make it easy to read. I only have a few suggestions, in general they regard a need for more detail and clarification. I will list them by heading, they are:
Good work overall!
LupeAguilera (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The opening paragraph might mention the importance of measurement effort, the fact that GII, and its predecessors GEM and GDI, provide measures that allow countries' standing on gender inequality relative to each other can be measured.
I did some light editing in the several paragraphs. Standardize spelling of "labor" throughout as the American spelling.
You mention World Economic Forum in reference to the idea of how gender equality matters for growth, but a) there are other references you could add for that idea; b) WEF has a gender inequality index of its own, which might merit mentioning (along with its components) as background.
Elaborate on "The GII has shown reproductive health to be the largest contributor to gender inequality across the globe." How? Does HDR 2010 of 2011 report the % contributions of different components? If so, add this discussion. Also, adding the MMR and AFR averages for 2011 from the end of Table 4 would be useful. (Perhaps you can give a range--the highest MMR average was x per 100,000 live births in the case of SSA and the lowest MMR was y in xtv countries...etc.) Same for other components.
A minor correction: GII, GEM, GDI are "indicators" or "measures" (rather than "measurements").
Whether or not GII represents a loss of human development is not clear (since the components of the two differ, GII should not represent loss of human development, except in a broader sense (and not in the HDI sense). Clarify.
In the tables (which are impressive!) add 0's before decimal points. The title could be Top Ten (rather than Highest Ten) countries and then the text could be "The top ten countries in terms of lowest gender inequality as measured by the GII..." The second table could parallel this one--The Bottom Ten..."Ten countries with the highest levels of gender inequality as measured by the GII"
Add what "association-sensitive" means.
In addition to the footnote references identify the authors in the article, such as, "According to Permanyer,...." Related, avoid the passive voice "The GII has been criticized on whether or not..."
"The Mix of Indices section needs elaboration. The problems here are not clear.
Be sure to provide full references. Permanyer is published in Social Indicators Research. You should delete the publisher (in the case of journals), but should include vol. no, the page numbers for the article.
In the last paragraph add a link to the article oon Unpaid Work by FMVeblen. (to do so, you need to change "unpaid domestic or care work" to "unpaid work (domestic or care work)")BerikG (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)BerikG
This has to be some kind of joke I don't get, right? 2003:DE:A3CB:6576:A165:B741:3D44:4E6E (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia more equal to women than South Africa?😂😂😂 196.249.98.156 (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I clicked & downloaded the links then noticed the ranking scores for the countries are not correct. For example, Denmark is ranked 4th but according to the source, it's ranked 2nd. Erzan (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at University of Utah supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from ((WAP assignment))
by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)