You might find the "Find" function handy.
Don't forget to properly reference (review the "Writing..." article and/or the E&H page for the first assignment, if necessary) the source of the information, otherwise you will have committed plagiarism.
The principle source of the information used in completing this assignment is an example of one of those cases in which there is no identifiable individual who is responsible for the accuracy of the information and/or who should receive credit for making the information available. It is the organization that should properly be identified as the "author" of the material. The major question is whether it is iVillage.com or ParentsPlace.com that should receive the credit. Since iVillage.com is the larger, umbrella site that focuses on a wide variety of women's issues and concerns, and ParentsPlace.com is a distinct section within iVillage, either could probably be used. However, since ParentsPlace.com is the more specific site, and provides a more direct connection to the source of the specific information used in the assignment, it would probably be the preferred "author" in the citation. (This conclusion is based on the same logic that determines that the author of a section of an edited volume is shown as the author of the material cited in the references, rather than the Editor of the edited volume. As far as I can tell, however, APA has not yet made a specific determination of how to handle such matters in the case of electronic media.)
Deciding what publication date to report might cause some confusion
when citing pages of this type. There might be more than one way
to think about it, and unfortunately APA has not yet indicated how to go
about deciding. An arguement could be made that the copyright date
for the site or page would be an approximation of the publication date,
but there is no certainty that it would be correct. A second possibility
is that, in this case, your calendar was created for you at the time you
answered the questions and submitted them. That would seem to be
a "better" publication date to report. If there was no way
at all to determine what to do, you could fall back on APA's way of showing
that there is "no publication date indicated".