Rondishah

The article I read was called Gender Roles & it was rated with a C and I can completely understand why. It is a good source however there are a few confusing notes in the source. Some of the words are a bit vague and can be considered to be a distraction from what the topic is. In this case the source is Gender Role. Yes the site does explain who coined the phrase and when but it also mentions a lot about other terms such as genderqueer, and gender socialization but doesn’t explain what they are within the text. Some of the citations are missing and should be added into the source so that it can be a more credible source. The article doesn't really set up a biased position or frame but it does seem to be a bit more on the liberal expressive yet sort of understanding side. The article has more to do with identity then it does with the actual gender roles. Identity may be more overrepresented than the actual article itself. Throughout the article the editor does touch on how it other societies do not identify with a gender at all or have more than one gender and I felt as though that was an example of not being biased when it comes down to the actual roles  that certain genders might have . On the talk page I can kind of get a sense of some of the editors. For example, they are talking about using a more kind of humerus when they were looking for their picture to include in the actual article. That shows that they are not trying to make anyone feel uncomfortable in any way .