User:DakotaStrode/sandbox

This is bold.

This is bold]]

'Article Evaluation'
The Evaluation of Dolley Madison's Wikipedia Article

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

	The article was very, very rudimentary, and it lacked an incredible amount of detail about Dolley Madison herself. Not all of the information was relevant (see below comments).

	There is a great deal of focus on Dolley Madison’s male family members in her early childhood, rather than what she was doing. 	Again, there is a focus around James Madison during the early years of their marriage than on Dolley. 	There is a very limited section on what she did as the first lady, and it almost exclusively revolves around her role in saving art work in the 1814 attacks on Washington. 	There is a 20-year labeled section about her life that is incredibly small, and focuses on relocating homes, her husband, and her husband’s work. 	Her legacy and honors section is summarizes in two sentences. 	There is an entire section, almost larger than most of her biographical information, about how to spell her name.

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

	The article reads neutral, but the article describes more about men, specifically those close to her, than Dolley herself. This could be from a lack of research on Dolley Madison that has not been included in the article.

•	Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

	It does seem like Dolley’s actual viewpoints are underrepresented in the article. Most of the article is based on what people thought of her or associated with her husband, and not necessarily her own views. From the citations, it does not appear that any one source is over represented.

•	Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

	All of the citations that I checked worked; however, there are a few spots in the article where a citation has been needed. Also, some of the links went to Google Books or to the Wikipedia Dolley Madison article, which makes me question the accuracy of some of the citations. In the first quoted from a letter of the first lady, the link went to a site that no longer works, which makes me question the reliability of the source material.

•	Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

	Most of the information in the article comes from government websites, historical journals, historical books, or university publications, so the references seem neutral and appropriate; however, not all the citation links work, so I question the reliability of the information. Also, there seems to be an over reliance on White House materials than biographical information from other sources. Additionally, not all the facts throughout the article are cited, or they need a citation, so the information in the article seems not as trustworthy as it could be.

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

	The information does not appear to be out of date, but due to a lack of information about the subject of the article, the information would need to be more inclusive of the subject matter itself.

•	Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

	There is a large section debating the spelling of her name in comparison to actual documents that recorded her name. They based their arguments from both sides using various differing primary documents that use differing spellings of the name, which is probably why there is a section dedicated to the spelling of her name. 	People questioned the factual accuracy of which slave carried the Washington photo from the burning White House, and the author decided to include both slave names to make everyone happy instead of just the factually proven name. 	An IP editor restructured the entire article because it had too much irrelevant information, which considering how unrelated the actual article is to Dolley, may indicate that the author has not done much research into the actual subject. 	Dates of death were considered in accurate due to using unreliable sources, and the author fought back at the person who questioned it. 	There have also been several fights between the editors over what information is relevant to the article and questioning of whose sources are accurate or more accurate.

•	How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

	It appeared that the article had not ratings that indicated that it was a good article or a featured article or that it needed more information. I also did not see that it was a part of any WikiProjects.

•	How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

	I think that it actually hits on many points from our first class, in which we briefly examined how the articles on women in power have limited information or need extensive revisions. Specifically this article has more information about men than Dolley, which may skew readers’ opinions about the importance of Dolley Madison.

Roberta Achtenberg Suggested Evaluation
- The article could be improved by adding a significant amount of biographical research in addition to a significant amount of information about her policies, career, and legacy. The article needs more sources and various perspectives from a variety of such sources.

Potential Sources
Achtenberg, R. (1995). Symposium: Keynote Address. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 143(5), 1191-1201. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3312473.

Commissioners. (2016, June 13). Retrieved February 01, 2018, from http://www.usccr.gov/about/bio/Achtenberg.php.

MILLER, D. (1998). Freedom to Differ: The Shaping of the Gay and Lesbian Struggle for Civil Rights. New York; London: NYU Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qfg14.

Roberta Achtenberg. (2018). Retrieved February 01, 2018, from https://www.c-span.org/person/?robertaachtenberg.

Roberta Achtenberg, California, 1990 · Out and Elected in the USA: 1974-2004 · outhistory.org. (n.d.). Retrieved February 01, 2018, from http://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/out-and-elected/1990/roberta-achtenberg.

The outrageous appointment of roberta achtenberg. (1993, May 29). Human Events, 53, 5. Retrieved from http://proxyau.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1310034486?accountid=8285.

Twohy, P. (2003). 100 most influential women in business: Roberta achtenberg. San Francisco Business Times, 17(37) Retrieved from http://proxyau.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/227737180?accountid=8285.

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, H. (1993). Nominations of Kenneth D. Brody, Roberta Achtenberg, and Nicolas P. Retsinas: hearing before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, on Kenneth D. Brody to be President and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank, Roberta Achtenberg to be Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Nicolas P. Retsinas to be Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development as Federal Housing Commissioner, April 29, 1993. Washington: U.S. G.P.O..

=Roberta Achtenberg Page edits=

WP:COPYARTICLE, old revision of Roberta Achtenberg which this user subsequently edited