User:Cba021/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Elizabeth Blackburn

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it offers a biographical sketch of a female molecular biologist, therefore it represents an opportunity to evaluate how underrepresented groups in science are portrayed on Wikipedia. This article is important since the subject (Elizabeth Blackburn) is not only a Nobel laureate but also a political figure in bioethics. I'm curious about how individuals from underrepresented groups in biology are represented online when they are also involved in subjective, political pursuits. My first impression of the article was that it seems mostly neutral, objective, and contains a large amount of information while remaining concise.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

This biographic article of Elizabeth Blackburn is a robust and well-developed sketch of the life and research of an important female molecular biologist. However, the article's major shortcomings are in its somewhat redundant content and subjective descriptions of Blackburn's research.

The article’s lead section is concise and clear, yet the opening sentence does not accurately represent the main focus of the article. I suggest that the first sentence be revised to reflect the main focus of the article- Blackburn’s co-discovery of telomerase- rather than the somewhat tangential mention of her election to president of the Salk Institute, which appears late in the article without much detail. I think the lead could better reflect the main sections of the article by emphasizing Blackburn’s research first and foremost, as this content makes up the bulk of the article, followed by her Nobel Prize and associated roles in bioethics and academic mentorship.

Overall, the article’s content is relevant and up-tp-date. However, there are two sections titled “Personal life” separated by a lengthy “Awards and honours” section and they seem to contain partly overlapping content. I suggest merging these two sections into one section, while eliminating redundant information. In addition, Blackburn’s discovery of telomerase is discussed in some detail in both the “Career and research” section as well as the “Telomerase” section in a way that seems redundant. I suggest that the content from the “Telomerase” section be merged into the “Career and research” section while eliminating the sentences that contain overlapping information.

Although half of the lead section discusses Blackburn’s role as a bioethicist, this is only discussed in a brief paragraph near the end of the article. I suggest that this paragraph be expanded in the main article, or the lead be revised to reflect the relatively minor emphasis on this aspect of Blackburn’s life and research in the article.

The article elegantly navigates the political conflicts related to Blackburn’s role of as a bioethics advisor while maintaining neutrality. However, there are some statements, particularly in descriptions of the telomerase enzyme, that depart from neutrality. For instance, the repeated use of the word “replenishing” to describe the biological function of telomerase seems subjective, if not inaccurate. I suggest replacing the term with a more neutral and accurate word like “maintaining” to describe telomerase’s role with respect to telomeres.

The claims in the article are supported by a long list of citations that include published scientific articles, press releases, and books published by Blackburn or associates. To improve the reliability of cited sources, it is important to exclude information prone to biases, such as press releases and publications written by the subject of the article. Peer-reviewed, third-party sources that support these claims would provide stronger evidence.

One last suggestion I have for this article is to remove the infographic of Blackburn's research and replace this somewhat irrelevant image with a photo representing Blackburn's research- like an image of telomerase.