Fact-Check a Guide to the 30 Terms Every Working Mom Should Know

Yes. Your original had the right substance, but it read more like notes for a fact-checker than a compelling job brief. I’d make it tighter, clearer about the stakes, and more specific about what “good” looks like. I’m looking for an experienced fact-checker to review a roughly 7,000-word guide written for working mothers. *A Working Mom’s Guide to 30 Terms That Name What You Feel* takes established concepts from sociology, economics, public health, psychology, and legal scholarship and translates them into plain language to help working moms understand some of the forces shaping their lives at home and at work. That translation is exactly why I need a rigorous second set of eyes. I am less worried about catching typos than I am about catching a definition that has drifted from what the original researcher meant, an attribution that is too neat for a more complicated history, or a research finding that has been stated more strongly than the evidence supports. The guide contains 30 short entries. Each includes a plain-language definition, a relatable example, an explanation of the concept’s consequences, and an origin section identifying the scholar and source behind the term. The scholarship includes work by Arlie Hochschild, Joan Williams, Claudia Goldin, Jacob Hacker, Bruce McEwen, Sharon Hays, and others. I need the fact-checker to verify: * Definitions: Does the plain-language explanation accurately reflect the original concept? Flag anything that has become broader, narrower, or meaningfully different in translation. * Attributions and origins: Confirm names, dates, publications, and whether the scholar credited actually originated, developed, coined, or popularized the term. I especially want to know when the history is more complicated than a single attribution suggests. * Research findings and statistics: Check quantitative claims and summaries of studies against primary sources wherever possible, including whether the population, timeframe, comparison, and limitations are represented accurately. *Overclaiming: Flag causal language when the evidence only establishes an association, generalizations beyond the population studied, or conclusions that go further than the underlying research. *Source quality: Confirm that the citation actually supports the claim being made and identify a better primary source when appropriate. *Conceptual overlap: Flag places where two terms may have been conflated even though the scholarship treats them as distinct. The ideal person has experience in journalism fact-checking, academic research, research editing, or library science and is comfortable working from primary sources rather than relying on summaries or secondary articles. Familiarity with gender, labor, caregiving, or workplace scholarship is helpful, but meticulous sourcing and intellectual precision matter more to me than prior expertise in this particular subject.