Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: As the recognition of women become more apparent as time continues, I would like to follow the trail of how women got to the places they are today. The contributions by women made up until this point have largely been underrepresented, disregarded, or forgotten. It is the duty of those who want to help others learn about the history of women to learn how the world was changed by women. These contrbutions range from art to literature to culture and everything in between. For a long time, women's thoughts and contributions were cast aside because they were thought of as property, or accessories, that belonged to men, but slowly, women worked up the courage to trust in themselves that they were and are worth just as much as men.
"Women's history is the study of the role that women have played in history and the methods required to do so. It includes the study of the history of the growth of woman's rights throughout recorded history, personal achievement over a period of time, the examination of individual and groups of women of historical significance, and the effect that historical events have had on women. Inherent in the study of women's history is the belief that more traditional recordings of history have minimized or ignored the contributions of women to different fields and the effect that historical events had on women as a whole; in this respect, women's history is often a form of historical revisionism, seeking to challenge or expand the traditional historical consensus. The main centers of scholarship have been the United States and Britain, where second-wave feminist historians, influenced by the new approaches promoted by social history, led the way. As activists in women's liberation, discussing and analyzing the oppression and inequalities they experienced as women, they believed it imperative to learn about the lives of their fore mothers—and found very little scholarship in print. History was written mainly by men and about men's activities in the public sphere, especially in Africa—war, politics, diplomacy and administration. Women are usually excluded and, when mentioned, are usually portrayed in sex-stereotypical roles such as wives, mothers, daughters, and mistresses. The study of history is value-laden in regard to what is considered historically "worthy." Other aspects of this area of study are the differences in women's lives caused by race, economic status, social status, and various other aspects of society."
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the article does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, even linking to another Wikipedia article to help define what was said.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. Instead, the lead summarizes how women's history has been underrated through time. It continues to speak on how men practically wrote the story for the majority of the time, while still excluding women's contributions.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, as the article itself focuses on different areas around the world and when women's contributions became more apparent.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise, but it could also be revised to speak on what the article will be about. The second paragraph seems jarring to the flow of the article.
Overall, the Lead did what it was supposed to do, but I believe that the second paragraph should have focused more on the article. It seemed somewhat repetitive and a misuse of the space.
"The work of women scholars was ignored by the male-dominated history profession until the 1960s, when the first breakthroughs came. Gerda Lerner in 1963 offered the first regular college course in women's history. The field of women's history exploded dramatically after 1970, along with the growth of the new social history and the acceptance of women into graduate programs in history departments. In 1972, Sarah Lawrence College began offering a Master of Arts Program in Women's History, founded by Gerda Lerner, which was the first American graduate degree in the field. Another important development was to integrate women into the history of race and slavery. A pioneering effort was Deborah Gray White's 'Ar'n't I a Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South (1985), which helped to open up analysis of race, slavery, abolitionism, and feminism, as well as resistance, power, and activism, and themes of violence, sexualities, and the body. A major trend in recent years has been to emphasize a global perspective. Although the word "women" is the eighth most commonly used word in abstracts of all historical articles in North America, it is only the twenty-third most used word in abstracts of historical articles in other regions. Furthermore, "gender" appears about twice as frequently in American history abstracts compared to abstracts covering the rest of the world."
Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article's content reviews when women began gaining recognition and the decades in which it happened, in addition to world events where women seemed to be lesser than men.
Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the content is up-to-date.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think more could be added on the wage gap, voting, police brutality, women of color, and more. I think that the second paragraph of the Lead should be reevaluated.
The content touched on a lot of good points, but more time should have been focused on system against women (such as voting, employment, education opportunities, etc.) because there is a lot more to say. Different groups could also have been added, such as about the Tang Dynasty of China.
"Educational aspirations were on the rise and were becoming increasingly institutionalized in order to supply the church and state with the functionaries to serve as their future administrators. Girls were schooled too, but not to assume political responsibility. Girls were ineligible for leadership positions and were generally considered to have an inferior intellect to their brothers. France had many small local schools where working-class children - both boys and girls - learned to read, the better "to know, love, and serve God." The sons and daughters of the noble and bourgeois elites were given gender-specific educations: boys were sent to upper school, perhaps a university, while their sisters - if they were lucky enough to leave the house - would be sent to board at a convent with a vague curriculum. The Enlightenment challenged this model, but no real alternative was presented for female education. Only through education at home were knowledgeable women formed, usually to the sole end of dazzling their salons."
Is the article neutral? Yes, it is factual based on events that have happened.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not particularly. When there are opinions, it comes from a person in history who said or believed it and is cited.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Abolition, police brutality, women of color, and the wage gap is underrepresented.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It did not seem as such.
" Carolyn C. Lougee, "'Noblesse,' Domesticity, and Social Reform
The Education of Girls by Fenelon and Saint-Cyr", History of Education Quarterly 1974 14(1): 87–113
^ Linda L. Clark, Schooling the Daughters of Marianne: Textbooks and the Socialization of Girls in Modern French Primary Schools (SUNY Press, 1984) online.
^ Melanie M. Hughes and Pamela Paxton, "The Political Representation of Women over Time," in The Palgrave Handbook of Women’s Political Rights ed Susan Franceschet, et al. (2019) pp. 33-51 online.
^ Mary Lowenthal Felstiner, "Seeing 'The Second Sex' Through the Second Wave," Feminist Studies (1980) 6#2 pp. 247–276"
Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It seems that they are.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources reflect the available literature on the topic.
Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are current and range a vast amount of time.
"Women's historians have debated the impact of capitalism on the status of women. Taking a pessimistic side, Alice Clark argued that when capitalism arrived in 17th century England, it made a negative impact on the status of women as they lost much of their economic importance. Clark argues that in the 16th century England, women were engaged in many aspects of industry and agriculture. The home was a central unit of production and women played a vital role in running farms, and in some trades and landed estates. Their useful economic roles gave them a sort of equality with their husbands. However, Clark argues, as capitalism expanded in the 17th century, there was more and more division of labor with the husband taking paid labor jobs outside the home, and the wife reduced to unpaid household work. Middle-class and women were confined to an idle domestic existence, supervising servants; lower-class women were forced to take poorly paid jobs. Capitalism, therefore, had a negative effect on many women. In a more positive interpretation, Ivy Pinchbeck argues that capitalism created the conditions for women's emancipation. Tilly and Scott have to emphasize the continuity and the status of women, finding three stages in European history. In the preindustrial era, production was mostly for home use and women produce much of the needs of the households. The second stage was the "family wage economy" of early industrialization, the entire family depended on the collective wages of its members, including husband, wife and older children. The third or modern stage is the "family consumer economy," in which the family is the site of consumption, and women are employed in large numbers in retail and clerical jobs to support rising standards of consumption."
Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, each section is fairly straightforward to follow, as most sections ideas are similar to the last.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I am aware of. There have been many edits, so I am sure other editors must have caught errors if there had been any.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, however, there could have been more sections to represent an even better world view. At the end of the day, each section spoke about where women were to where they are now and how they got there.
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are limited images, but the ones included are enjoyable. There are definitely more that could help enhance the article.
Are images well-captioned? Not particularly. The images have standard captions but do not go into depth at all - they are there probably for just visual representation.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The first image does not have a link to anywhere and is simply captioned. The others lead to other places on Wikipedia.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? I would say no. They are simply placed on the side. If there were more, even in this order, it would probably look more appealing.
"I must respectfully disagree. Speaking as a graduate student in history, I assure you that the field of Women's History is not the same as "gender history" (which isn't an accepted field everywhere). The field of women's history has a tradition and a body of scholars who identify themselves as women's historians. In fact, the American History Association offers a prize every year called the Joan Kelly Memorial Prize for Women's History (not gender history).
On another issue, the idea of "herstory" is appropriate to leave in. It is not an "extreme" idea at all. The whole field was created by feminists anyway, and I think we do them a disservice and we distort reality by trying somehow to minimize their influence. In short, it is not historically accurate! :-) Graceful1 06:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Also speaking as a graduate student in history, I agree that Women's History is not the same as Gender History but insist there is a world outside academia in which "Women's History" the field (which now seems to be using the article Herstory) is hard to separate from the actual history of women. See World History vs History of the world for another example. In fact, when I created Gender History, I described it as an outgrowth of Women's History the field. If, however, you want to move this article to the history of women and rename Herstory to Women's History, I'd support it. Finally, whether or not "herstory" is an extreme idea really depends on your point of view. - TheMightyQuill 19:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)"
What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is a lot of discussion about "herstory" and gender rights and history, as opposed to women's rights and history. There are also sections that disagrees with the author of the article and explains why.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is a part of three WikiProjects: WikiProject Gender Studies (rated start-class), WikiProject Women's History (rated start-class, Top-importance), and WikiProject History (rated start-class).
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This article seems to discuss more complete facts than anything else, which is what it should do. In class, it is normal to discuss with more feeling about subject, rather than just use our heads.
The Talk page seems like a useful, but stressful place, on the grounds of people commenting and not doing anything about it. All opinions are welcome, but it is not useful or respectful to write without trying to help.
"Interest in the study of women's history in Eastern Europe has been delayed. Representative is Hungary, where the historiography has been explored by Petö and Szapor (2007). Academia resisted incorporating this specialized field of history, primarily because of the political atmosphere and a lack of institutional support. Before 1945, historiography dealt chiefly with nationalist themes that supported the anti-democratic political agenda of the state. After 1945, academia reflected a Soviet model. Instead of providing an atmosphere in which women could be the subjects of history, this era ignored the role of the women's rights movement in the early 20th century. The collapse of Communism in 1989 was followed by a decade of promising developments in which biographies of prominent Hungarian women were published, and important moments of women's political and cultural history were the subjects of research. However, the quality of this scholarship was uneven and failed to take advantage of the methodological advances in research in the West. In addition, institutional resistance continued, as evidenced by the lack of undergraduate or graduate programs dedicated to women's and gender history at Hungarian universities."
What is the article's overall status? This article has been listed as level-5 vital article in an unknown topic, still in a start-Class.
What are the article's strengths? Discussing many points in history where women have been overlooked and discussing globally where and how women were treated.
How can the article be improved? There needs to be equitable sections for geographical and historical times. The sections around the world can be added to and the historical movements can be added tenfold.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The artical is adequately developed, as much more can be added, but what it is at the moment is a decent start.
There needs to be more sections about my aforementioned thoughts and more overall development, but the article had to start somewhere and I think it is a start that can be worked with.
Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback
_-_Girl_playing_on_gekin_-_n._1007.jpg)