User:GladL/sandbox

Transition notes
Done

1960s-2010s

Women in Space Program

Active Women astronuats

major events

Intro

Unfinished

Today in NASA

Original (Women in NASA)
The role of women in and affiliated with NASA has varied over time. Their earliest roles were restricted to supportive or administrative jobs, but by the end of the space program there were women astronauts. Today women are helping lead NASA into the future.

History
Women first worked in support as administrators, computerists, secretaries, doctors, psychologists, and later engineers. In the 1970s NASA started recruiting women and minorities for the space program with little success. Some of the women who worked in these roles included Mary Shep Burton, Gloria B. Martinez, Cathy Osgood, and Shirley Hunt who all worked in the computer division, and Sue Erwin, Lois Ransdell, and Maureen Bowen who worked as secretaries for various members of the Mission and Flight Control teams. Beginning in 1977 the recruitment slowly began to increase after they had Nichelle Nichols help with recruitment. Part of the advantage she had in recruitment for the space program was that her role as Lieutenant Uhura on Star Trek helped inspire girls to attempt to become astronauts at NASA when they grew up. One of the girls inspired was Mae Jemison who was the first Black woman astronaut. Another important woman was Ellen Ochoa who joined NASA in 1988 and became the first Hispanic woman to become an astronaut.

Some issues NASA faced in recruiting women as well as minorities for the space program was that throughout NASA's history the astronauts had always been white men. This was at least partially caused by the restrictive academic requirements for the earlier astronauts. Originally the astronauts, aside from the specific training from NASA, were required to have master's degrees in various sciences such as engineering so that they could deal with issues that came up during or after the spaceship was launched. Another part of the issue was that NASA similar to other businesses, did not look specifically for women to work for them outside of specific areas until the government ratified the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. This discredited NASA with women and minorities when they did try to recruit them as they did not believe NASA actually meant what it said in the recruitment drives. This led to NASA hiring Nichelle Nichols as a recruitment consultant and as the face of their new recruitment drive. After which the recruitment rates for women and minorities increased and eventually led to women astronauts of various ethnic backgrounds.

Major events

 * Brigadier General Donald Flickinger, a member of the NASA Special Advisory Committee on Life Sciences, along with Dr. W. Randolph “Randy” Lovelace II, inaugurated the Woman in Space Earliest (WISE) program—1959
 * Dana Ulery was the first woman engineer to be hired at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) of NASA. Although she was only considered as a junior engineer, for more than seven years, no woman engineer got into JPL besides Ulery—1960
 * Jerrie Cobb appointed NASA administration consultant—1961
 * Women join NASA as engineers—1971
 * NASA writes plan for recruiting women and minorities for space program—September 12, 1973
 * Anna Fisher, Shannon W. Lucid, Judith A. Resnik, Sally K. Ride, Margaret R. Seddon, and Kathryn D. Sullivan chosen to become astronauts—January 31, 1978
 * Sally Ride becomes first woman to fly in space—June 18, 1983
 * Astronaut Judith A. Resnik and payload specialist Sharon Christa McAuliffe die in Challenger accident—January 1986
 * Mae Jemison becomes first Black woman in space—September 11, 1992
 * Colonel Eileen Collins becomes first woman to command a spacecraft—July 20, 1999

Peer Review Reagan young1 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 * 1) You’re doing a good job expanding this article so far. I think breaking the history up into decades was a good call and helps clearly lead us through the history of women in NASA. You’ve got a lot of great information to add to the article so far.
 * 2) Your introduction is quite long but doesn’t contain very many citations. I think it needs some reworking to make it sound more formal and a little more focused. Also, the 1980s and 1990s were the decades where women were finally able to go into space but are the smaller sections. I think those can be further expanded, maybe you can talk about what the reception to a woman in space was, what the public opinion was, any road blocks they had in that time, etc.
 * 3) I think watching out for repetition, awkward phrasing, and unnecessary sentences is going to be the most important thing for this article. You’re doing a great job of finding information and fleshing this article out, but watch the structure of your writing. I realize this is a very rough draft right now but read and re-read to get rid of any awkward language or phrasing. The areas I specifically noticed was the introduction, the 1960s section (you use “however” a lot in that paragraph and have two sentences in a row beginning with “Another”), the first sentence of the 1970s is unnecessary, and the phrase “history was made” for the 1980s and 1990s sections doesn’t sound very neutral.
 * 4) My article is pretty different from the structure of this one, but I think staying neutral is something I’ve had to remind myself again and again

Reagan young1 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Mth52b (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 * 1) I really like all of the information you guys added to this article. There is a lot of new facts and information here that is not in the original article. I also like how you guys added decades in the 1900’s as seperate sections. It’s really easy to follow.
 * 2) I think the diction of this article needs to improve. It feels like this is just a causal essay somebody wrote when looking only at the wording, which can cause the facts and important details to lose importance and credibility.  For example, at the start of the  1990’s section, the wording should be: On February 3, 1995 Colonel Eileen Collins made history by becoming the first woman to pilot a spacecraft… . It sounds much more formal and doesn’t cause the reader to “check out”. Another thing to watch out for is referencing people like Dr. Mae Jemison in the 1970’s paragraph, who was involved in NASA in the 90’s, and then not mentioning her at all in the 90’s paragraph. Plus, her being the first black woman astronaut is fairly important and needs to be mentioned in the 90’s section as a result. You guys may want to add a few pictures of some of these women. It helps to put faces to names. I will be adding some pictures to mine and this is something I would recommend to everyone.

Mth52b (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Upgrading the diction would definitely be the most important thing to fix.
 * 2) Unlike your article, my article does not have a table of contents. I think that is an excellent thing to add and I will absolutely be adding one to mine now.

Add to an Article (08-Mar-19)
Copied from Women in NASA and rephrased some sentences.

Women first worked in support as administrators, computerists, secretaries, doctors, psychologists, and later engineers. In the 1970s, NASA started recruiting women and minorities for the space program with little success. Some women like Mary Shep Burton, Gloria B. Martinez, Cathy Osgood, and Shirley Hunt worked in the computer division while other women Sue Erwin, Lois Ransdell, and Maureen Bowen worked as secretaries for various members of the Mission and Flight Control teams.

Beginning 1977, the recruitment slowly began to increase after Nichelle Nichols helped NASA with the recruitment process. Because of her role as Liutenant Uhura in the series Star Trek, Nichols inspired girls to become astronauts at NASA when they grow up. Mae Jemison, who was the first Black woman astronaut, was one of the girls that Nichols inspired. Another important woman was Ellen Ochoa who joined NASA in 1988 and became the first Hispanic woman to become an astronaut.

One issue that NASA encountered in recruiting women and minorities for the space program was that NASA's astronauts had always been white men. This was partially caused by the restrictive academic requirements for earlier astronauts. Originally, the astronauts, aside from taking the specific training from NASA, were required to have master's degrees in various sciences, such as engineering so that they could deal with issues that came up during or after the spaceship was launched. Another issue was that NASA, similar to other businesses, did not look specifically for women to work for them outside of specific areas until the government ratified the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. This discredited NASA with women and minorities when they tried to recruit them as the women and minorities did not believe NASA actually meant what it said in the recruitment drives. This led to NASA hiring Nichelle Nichols as a recruitment consultant and as the face of their new recruitment drive. After which, the recruitment rates for women and minorities increased and eventually led to women astronauts of various ethnic backgrounds.

2 sentences to add in Major Events:


 * Brigadier General Donald Flickinger, a member of the NASA Special Advisory Committee on Life Sciences, along with Dr. W. Randolph “Randy” Lovelace II, inaugurated the Woman in Space Earliest (WISE) program—1959
 * Dana Ulery was the first woman engineer to be hired at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) of NASA. Although she was only considered as a junior engineer, for more than seven years, no woman engineer got into JPL besides Ulery—1960

A citation to the "Jerrie Cobb" bullet was added. (Ryan, K. L., Loeppky, J. A., & Kilgore, D. E. (2009). A forgotten moment in physiology: the Lovelace Woman in Space Program (1960–1962). Advances in Physiology Education, 33(3), 157-164. doi:10.1152/advan.00034.2009)

Sources and Plagiarism (01-Mar-19)

 * Why did you choose it? What's missing? What do you want to add?

There are only few women mentioned in the article even though there should be more. We will improve this by researching on more women in the NASA company and more content about each. We also plan to add on the timeline (such as achievements, milestones, employment history) because the years are far away from each other and the most recent one is dated 1999. We can also add information about the year gaps present in the "Major Events" section. We can also add photos and charts that are related to the article. It was created about a year ago, and it has not been edited since then. We will also add references since the last reference is dated 2000 and it is likely there are more new stuff women in NASA now. We will also look up at NASA's website to find a list of women to research on.

Some specific stuff:

Sources
 * The introduction is very short and needs more improvement.
 * The "History" section ended up about recruitment only and it could have been more substantial than that.
 * We can also expand on the issues faced by NASA since the article only mentioned it briefly.


 * 1) https://www-nature-com.libproxy.mst.edu/articles/532034a
 * 2) https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB666008547/?fromsearch=true&query_string=Women%20in%20NASA&last_query=/isis/search/%3Fq%3DWomen%2Bin%2BNASA%26models%3Disisdata.citation%26s%3D (Dana Ulery)
 * 3) https://muse-jhu-edu.libproxy.mst.edu/article/546889/pdf
 * 4) https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB964157851/?fromsearch=true&query_string=Women%20in%20NASA&last_query=/isis/search/%3Fq%3DWomen%2Bin%2BNASA%26models%3Disisdata.citation%26s%3D (The Interstellar Age: The Story of the NASA Men and Women Who Flew the Forty-Year Voyager Mission (2016)
 * 5) https://women.nasa.gov/ (List of women to research)
 * 6) https://www.nasa.gov/education/womenstem/women-in-space (List of women to research)
 * 7) https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/missionteam/women-scientists-engineers-mars/ (List of women to research)
 * 8) https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB746153911/?fromsearch=true&query_string=Women%20in%20NASA&last_query=/isis/search/%3Fq%3DWomen%2Bin%2BNASA%26models%3Disisdata.citation%26s%3D (Women in Space: 23 Stories of First Flights, Scientific Missions, and Gravity-Breaking Adventures (2014))
 * 9) https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB001032637/?fromsearch=true&query_string=Women%20in%20NASA&last_query=/isis/search/%3Fq%3DWomen%2Bin%2BNASA%26models%3Disisdata.citation%26s%3D (Giant Leaps and Forgotten Steps: NASA and the Performance of Gender (2009))

Article Evaluation (22-Feb-19)
Reproductive toxicity


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?

The content so far is relevant to the topic; however, this is only one aspect of reproductive toxicity. The article only talked about some substances that cause reproductive toxicity. Since the topic is something related to the reproductive system, I strongly believe that we can add two large section for men and women. I believe it is important for us to tackle the sexes differently because they have different reproductive organs. The article also did not discuss anything regarding the cure and treatments that are currently in practice, if there are. Since this is related to human health, it is good to put what research has found out about this now. Aside from cures, the symptoms and effects of reproductive toxicity to humans is also something that can be added. Lastly, there was nothing about how this "reproductive toxicity" started like when was the first recorded case of this? Did it like start from an animal, maybe? Or like, an accident wherein there is a spread of the substances mentioned here? Or through a real intercourse? If there are also statistics that would show how many people die or became a victim for a certain period of time, that is also something to add. Basically, it would be great to add its discovery (who? when? where? how?) whether it was experimentally or hypothetically.

In the Bisphenol section, I find the last sentence there hanging. I think it could be further elaborated since it already brought the male and female sexes. At the same time, this can be linked to history in which sex the toxicity was first confirmed.

In the Lead section, I find some hedging from the article which shows uncertainty. I strongly suggest to look for reliable sources that could either prove or debunk those speculations.


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

Several of the links work, and they came from neutral references. No reference was from newspapers and blogs. But, I feel that there should be more citations or the citations should be placed on their proper places at least. I noticed that the citations were only found on the last parts of each paragraph and clumped together. I feel that those citations should be distributed onto which information was actually found from the authors cited.

The oldest reference is dated 2001 while the most recent one is dated 2016. It would be nice if this could be updated on both ends. More recent references would update the new information and trends regarding reproductive toxicity while older references would show how this concept was introduced to human beings.

A minor observation, but the references are not consistently formatted


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

There are actually no conversations going on about it. The article was only revised twice as of today (April 4, 2009 and August 13, 2015). This only portrays that the article needs attention. The article is part of two WikiProjects, one for Chemistry and one for Occupational Safety and Health. In Chemistry, it is rated as mid-importance while on the latter, it is rated as high-importance. I do agree with these ratings because I find the article necessary to human health. If future studies would focus on finding better solutions or treatments to this, it would be helpful if they would know the history of reproductive toxicity.

In class, I am expecting that we will tackle the human body through the lens of philosophers or experts who had no access to modern technology. It would be discussed very differently from here because the contest on this so far is very scientific, if I may say, and contains lots of terminologies that might have never been heard by the people before.