I think you were well intentioned in saying this, but youre actually the one who is misguided.
She is literally set apart in the facts – her specific calculations were identified as critical to successfully completing the mission. Not acknowledging that, in fact, is marginalizing her accomplishments, not the other way around.
There were dozens and dozens of computers, there’s no argument there, but she is consistently identified as a thought leader whose work categorically, traceably, contributed to the success of the mission. There is lots of information about it on her wikipedia page or even on the NASA website 🙂
EDIT: to all the pretentious dicks who are getting into semantics, just stop. I am NOT calling her the greatest, that was not my comment, i am rebutting the notion that she is not significant when apparently saying she was an average computer gives you guys serious hard-ons. Using a superlative like greatest is not in my vocabulary, but to say she was just like everyone else is very simpleminded.