User talk:Jballingeralyn

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, Jballingeralyn, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.We're so glad you're here! Matthewvetter (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is for the assignment! Good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk106512 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tuesday In Class Work[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Nourse_Rogers#cite_ref-2

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

Most facts have no reference at all, most of the article is referenced by two secondary sources. There is also a further readings page, but it is unclear if those readings were used since none of them were specifically referenced.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Most information is relevant but the article also has a lot of information that deviates from Edith's biography. For instance the WAAC section of the biography goes more in depth about WAAC than it does about Congresswoman Rogers.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is overall neutral, however, there are spots throughout the article that describe her in reference to how her male peers described her, almost solidifying her position and validating her experience through the male perspective.

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that biased noted?

One of the sources was a broken link. The other article was not specifically about the Congresswoman but instead mentioned her in relation to events that related to the article. However, the further readings section had nothing but information about Congresswoman Rogers, all in a positive light, mainly because she worked in the Army Corps of Women and was one of the first women to serve in the US Congress, also the longest serving until Senator Barb. But even with all of that historical relevance the article fails to use any of those sources directly throughout the article.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Her legacy portion has little information, considering her significance in history as one of the first women in Congress, and even more she was Republican, so being a trailblazer that she was, the article really fails to categorize her as a person who helped shape the history for women who serve in Congress today.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

I think a lot of the article uses words that have already been used by the further readings section yet all fail to be cited. One of the links that is cited in the article is a broken link.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Most of this article could either be updated or cited, mainly cited. None of the information seems to be out of date but the article does need to be worked on.