User talk:Tmilligan24/sandbox

Article Evaluation
I chose "Agnodice" as my article to evaluate. In the article, there seem to be valid points that the author/authors are attempting to get across, which I believe is done well. Taking the dynamic possible 'mythical' nature of Agnodice, the authors do a really good job later on in the article highlighting this. They mention, and cite, historians and their opinions. They even give clear and unbiased examples which support both her being mythical and also real. By doing this, it evenly presents both sides of the story of Agnodice. There do not appear to be any extreme words or language that are used that would make the article appear as if it was trying to convince the reader to believe a certain story. Although I do not have an in-depth knowledge of Agnodice, I feel as if the article was well-written and full of historical information that advanced my knowledge of Agnodice. According to what we learned in class, this touched on the same points and went into more of the nitty-gritty details, in my opinion; this is exactly what it should have done. After checking the citations, this is where problems occur--there are only three sources used, which could possibly sway the reader a certain direction. This lack of sources is very well likely due to the fact there is not much information available, but it nonetheless presents a possible bias. Out of the three sources, two of them were only available in print (with the exception of it being made available to our class on Canvas), but one was online and appears to be a reliable historically based book. I do not doubt them, I am just unable to confirm their accuracy and unbiasedness. Two of the articles were published no earlier than the mid-1980s, but one was published in 1870; this is probably still a reliable source due to the topic, but it should be checked. Sadly, the Talk page was lacking constructive discussions. There did not seem to be much wrong with the article other than a misused term that probably should have been contributed to Aristotle. The rating of the article was rated as start-class, low importance. It was in the Wikiprojects of Classical Greece and Rome, Science and Academia, Greece, Women's History, and Women Scientists. Compared to our class discussion, it talked about Agnodice very similar to how we did, mainly because most of the article was based on the paper we read by Helen King. Overall, it was a good article but could be benefitted by the addition more sources.

Article Selection/Bibliography
I expect to add to Virginia Alexander's Wiki page by discussing more specific medical procedures that she was able to perform as well as the general thoughts of others, specifically men, on her physician status. Additionally, I want to highlight the importance and how uncommon it was for women to not only attend Yale University but to practice medicine in general and the difficulties Virginia might have faced. I also want to discuss not only the difficulty she had as a woman, but the difficulties she faced as an African-American woman.

Bibliography: Harley, Sharon. Sister circle: Black women and work. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002. Dowdy, J. P. (2011). A phenomenological study of perceptions of identity and leadership among african-american female administrators within public higher education (Order No. 3487324). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (912750698). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/912750698?accountid=12964 Gamble, Vanessa Northington. "“Outstanding Services to Negro Health”: Dr. Dorothy Boulding Ferebee, Dr. Virginia M. Alexander, and Black Women Physicians’ Public Health Activism." American Journal of Public Health 106, no. 8 (2016): 1397-404. Tmilligan24 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Ty Milligan