User talk:19lunaa/sandbox

Article Evaluation Everything in my assigned article "Women in the military" seems to be relevant to the article topic. The article begins with a quick picture as to how long women have played an active role in the military, fallowed by the mentioning of the great controversy that has developed in relation to women's involvement. The article continues by explaining the story line as to when exactly women began to get involved and the many sidetones that come with those events in time. The storyline begin with the history of the world wars such as WWI and WWII. It then mentions the events that took place after the world wars, moving on it covered things such as policy changes, physical, social, and cultural changes, and ending with academic studies. The one thing that distracted me was the constant mentioning of "conscription into the military". I found this to be shocking, something tell me that I am not alone therefore something that I would like to look into is this concept. For example what is the process? Is there any loop holes? I felt the article did a poor job in explain what exactly was happening, or perhaps mentioned it really passively, but seems very important to me. Part of me what to believe this article is neutral, but I felt there was a great part in the article that focused more on the reasons why women in history have had issues with involvement in military forces. I also think that part of the article in a way not only informing the reader, but persuades them to gain an understanding as to why women have been neglected the participation in armed forces. I definitely believe that there are viewpoint overrepresented. For example a lot of the article focuses on informing the reader of the things that women have had to deal with in history and present day, while failing to ignoring the great contribution women have been and probably continue to be in the future. I think that there should be a little bit of more focus on the land works women have made and what they have brought to the table. I would also like to point out that the article fails to mention anything about the army which I think women play an extremely active part in. I could b wrong, but I feel that this time line is out of date, perhaps a bit more research can bring more contribution to this article. When it came to the links The couple that I checked all worked, and redirected me to the page it described. The source are used in well context, in which they support the claim in the article in which they are placed. To my knowledge most of the facts are referenced with an appropriate and reliable source. There are links to other wikipedia pages for basic information on a topic such as the "Marine Corps" and official web sites for topics such as "The American Navy". There are also scholarly articles link as to which you can get more information on that same topic. The sources through the article seem to be dispersed in a neutral fashion, considering that the article I've a give introductions to topics that relate to "women in military". Like I mentioned before I think that a lot of the information is very outdated. Most of the information is based on the 1900s. I believe the article only talks about the 21st century at the most two time. This leads me to believe that there is a substantial amount of information that need to uncovered! I think that by looking at present day statistics we can better improve this article which is somewhat emphasizing that women till this day have yet to process in their participation in the armed forces. After looking at the talk page on the article I discovered that many people found that the article need a bit of work, although there have been some modifications I think there is still room for some improvement. There are also things that could be described with a but more detail, and most importantly brought up to date. I also noted that there was a lot of changes/improvement done to the sources, which can explain the accurate links on most links/citations.The article is rated on wikiprojsects as intermediate article, with room for improvement. One of the way in which the ways wikipedia discusses the topic differs from the way we've talked about it in class is that here on wikipedia the article doesn't go into great detail, but rather mentions something, but overall explains thing ver broadly. On the other hand in class I think that we work on breaking down the article to the last detail, which I think overall helps the entire class get a deep understanding as to what we are talking about, rather than a broad idea/assumption.