User talk:Ashleynoelle1

Be bold on wikipedia :)

Article Possibilities[edit]

Freestyle_aerobics- This could be a possibility. It doesn't explicitly invoke gender, but I think we could make the argument that it isn't developed because of the gender gap.

Here are two lists of many, many stub and start class women scientist articles. If you're having trouble finding information on the open web, you should probably use the library databases.

Other possibilities might be Women's_reproductive_health_in_the_United_States or Angela_McLean_(biologist).

Look through these possibilities and let me know if you're still having trouble. Matthewvetter (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, Ashleynoelle1, 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) 22:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Evaluation[edit]

A few questions to consider (don't feel limited to these): Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? YES Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? YES, the only thing that distracted me was how amazing she really was and how smart she was. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article seems to be neutral throughout its entirety. Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that biased noted? The information comes from all secondary sources, publications, and external links. There is about 60 references that are used and cited at the bottom of the page. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are some false assumptions that are talked about in the section of "In popular culture" that maybe could be researched a little more to see if they are true. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? The citations that I checked worked with taking me to the noted page. I did not see any obvious plagiarism in this article. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? I think that there could be more information added to the "In Popular CUlture" section that maybe could talk about other scientists that have studied the same thing or close to the same thing that could be determined similiar.

I looked up Rosalind Franklin who is a very famous female scientist. I chose her particularly since she was a target of sexism. From what I understand, she had a lot of work contributed to the discovery of DNA. About 10 years after her death, two men pretty much took credit for her work. Here is her Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

````Ashley