User talk:MarkFlores X'O/sandbox

Week 2: Article Evaluation Evaluating content: yes everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. One thing that distracted me was the article is called list of artifacts in biblical archaeology but it doesn't include some very famous artifacts such as the Spear of Destiny or the Holy Grail. some of the information used is very old however, there are recent sources such as one from 2016. However, considering the fact the article is history related the older sources are reliable. One thing that could be improved is the controversial section could explain more in depth why its controversial. The Tone is informal and there doesn't seem to be any bias incorporated in the article. There are no view point in the article it is all solely history based on archaeological biblical artifacts. The links do work and the information provided in the links match up with the information provided in the article. Yes each one is properly referenced and there is no bias in the sources either. The conversation going on is people debating whether or not structures should be included as biblical artifacts. Another thing being discussed is the removal of the Shroud of Turin because of its most recent dating placing it in the 1200's AD. I am not sure what the rating on the article is however, the article is a part of a series on the Bible. This topic does not discuss what we talked about in class. The instructions were confusing it indicated you could chose a topic of personal preference but, i did not find anything discussing the topic we are focusing in class right now.

'''Week 3: Choose your article Female_education_in_STEM The articles content is related to the topic. The article talks about women in the STEM field and it explores reasons why they leave the field or are reluctant to join. The article is not overdeveloped or underdeveloped however it could include more information in each of the sub categories on why women leave STEM fields. The article does have a neutral tone for the most part. However there were certain instances were the tone seemed to be a bit bias. In the talks page someone else describes the article as biased as well. Yes every claim does seem to have citations and all the citations are fairly new and relevant. some sources i will be using to edit this source are: https://link-springer-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/10.1007%2Fs11218-012-9185-3 https://journals-sagepub-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1177/0894845316633787?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider https://www-jstor-org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2013.63.1.9?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents https://search-proquest-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/docview/1462044809?accountid=14506&pq-origsite=summon