User:Dlu16/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * "HeLa"


 * Article Evaluation
 * To preface, the article is currently a C-class article that is a part of several WikiProjects which include: cell biology, viruses, biology, genetics, philosophy, history of science. The first sentence of the lead provides a good definition of what the topic is and its origins. The second paragraph seems to bring about an assumption that "Henrietta Lacks had these cells taken from her without her knowledge or consent" which could have occurred at that time period; however, this assumption is only backed up by one citation from an ABC news article using quotes from a science writer, Rebecca Skloot. Within the second paragraph of the lead, there seems to be some short anecdote/narrative that is tied to the origins of the cell line's name, but it's unclear if this information is actually backed up by the citation or an interpretation of the events that unfolded during the procedure. The lead contains most of the relevant topics that are discussed in further detail within the article such as the origin, use in medicinal research, and controversy (contamination). One of the title headings "Analysis" seems generic and not very descriptive of the contents of the subheading. Perhaps "Traits" or "Characteristics" could be the new title, and moving the "complete genome sequence" to the "history" of HeLa or "new species proposal" would help organize the information a little more. It seems like "new species proposal" has much less information than the other topics, so perhaps this could be placed under "history" as well. Looking at the overall writing style, it appears that the language is neutral, but there is a lot of technical information as well. However, considering the general audience (mostly scientists or scientifically minded people), some of this technical language does not impede general understanding of the topic. There are some instances where the wording and ordering of the information seems repetitive such as "Neither Lacks nor her family gave permission to harvest the cells but, at that time, permission was neither required nor customarily sought." and "There was no requirement at that time (or at present) to inform patients or their relatives about such matters". All of the sources given do have working links, and seem to be relevant to the topic. The pictures provided give a good varied depiction of HeLa cells. The talk page also address the "no consent" idea with questioning whether or not it is biased. Overall, at a glance, the article seems to look fairly comprehensive and well-written, but the organization could see some improvements in ordering information, the writing could feel more cohesive, and some other perspectives on the ethics of commercializing discarded parts could be shown.


 * Sources
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3763245/
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516052/

Option 2

 * Article title
 * "John Money"


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article is current listed as a "B" class article and is a part of a couple WikiProjects including: Biography: Science/Academia, Psychology, Sexology and Sexuality, Gender Studies, New Zealand, LGBTQ studies. The first sentence of the lead gives a good description of who John Money was, and the lead introduces the main topics found later on in the article. I would suggest switching the places of the paragraph addressing the Reimer controversy and the paragraph of Money's publications. This would match the organization of the topics. The biography section seems to be more of a bullet point list of facts rather than a coherent paragraph. Perhaps some of the facts could go under a "legacy" section such as the "John Money wing". The wording of "John Money made the concept" is a little too strongly worded. Overall, it seems like the article was written with a neutral tone, even during the controversy topic. There is an instance where there is a "clarification needed" which indicates some further explanation needed. Citations 17-19 seem kind of redundant and unknown as the citations only show "Money", "1988" and an associated page number, but they lack a link to the publication and a publication title. The redundancy comes from the fact that 18 is pp. 114-119 and 17 and 19 are pg 116 and 115 respectively. There is only one image which depicts the late John Money. While this image gives a clear image to what he looked like physically, there could be images added for his family, housing, experiments, publications, etc. The talk page only has a comment that describes an edit on three external sources in the article. Overall, the biography section could have stronger organization/coherency as well as more biographical information (if possible), some citations need to be changed, and some other topics could be added (as I learn more about him).


 * Sources
 * Money, John. “Sexology: Behavioral, Cultural, Hormonal, Neurological, Genetic Etc.” The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 9, no. 1, 1973, pp. 2–10. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3811442. Accessed 20 Feb. 2020.
 * https://kinseyinstitute.org/about/profiles/john-money.php
 * Khan, Ummni. Review of The Man Who Invented Gender: Engaging the Ideas of John Money, by Terry Goldie. University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 85 no. 3, 2016, p. 489-491. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/632869.

Option 3

 * Article title
 * "Howard A. Howe"


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article hasn't been official graded yet, but it seems to be a "start" class article that has a few bits of information. It seems like the lead is really only a single sentence that describes who Howard A. Howe was i.e. a physician at JHU who helped develop a polio vaccine. Much of the content of the article is really only biographical information split into a couple of parts (early-life, later life, death). It seems like the later life, death, and early life topics could be combined under a biography or life topic instead. There seems to only be one sentence for "Awards and Recognition", "later life", and "death" and a few sentences for "early life". This lack of information makes it seem like Howe's contributions were not entirely significant (especially when considering Salk). There could be more information added such as Howe's research, other biographical information, reception, etc. The tone is neutral throughout the article (even with the lack of information in multiple areas). Citation 2 is somewhat strange as it takes you to a Pubmed page that is just the search results for Howard A. Howe. This is not exactly a great citation as it doesn't lead to any specific article that the information comes from, but rather, a robust selection of different articles that could have been cited properly. The picture of Howe used is fairly difficult to make out his features given the age of the picture. Overall, there needs to be a lot more information added to the article for it to be classed at around a B-C class level alone.


 * Sources
 * Bodian, David and Howard A. Howe. “Experimental Studies on Intraneural Spread of Poliomyelitis Virus.” (1941).
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002934349901278?via%3Dihub

Option 4

 * Article title
 * "David Bodian"


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article is listed as a "start" class in the Chicago WikiProject and a "C" class article in the Biography WikiProject. The lead provides a good description of who David Bodian was and why his work was important. However, the lead doesn't include anything past person description. It does not provide a brief overview of the topics that are going to be discussed. The organization of the topics are coherent and make sense (biographical -> important work -> accolades), if not a little sparse. The biographical information is well-written and gives a fairly comprehensive overview into Bodian's life. The summary from Bodian in the "Pioneer work on Polio vaccines" does not have a citation, so I'm not sure from what publication this summary is exactly from at a glance. The article has a neutral tone, and there aren't any glaring word choices that may indicate bias. There are only 3 citations, and it seems like the two links provided don't work (one is dead, and one tried to redirect me too many times), and one doesn't have a link, but the rest of the MLA information. This makes the information provided have questionable validity at best. Additionally, the only picture of Bodian is a rusted lower res image of a bronze bust of Bodian. It would most likely be more appropriate to provide a picture of Bodian in real life rather than a statue. The statue could be included in the accolades section. There are no comments in the talk section of the page. Overall, the article needs more reliable and accessible sources to provide useful, reliable information.


 * Sources
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/22/obituaries/david-bodian-82-leading-force-in-development-of-polio-vaccines.html
 * Neal Nathanson, David Bodian’s Contribution to the Development of Poliovirus Vaccine, American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 161, Issue 3, 1 February 2005, Pages 207–212, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwi033

Option 5

 * Article title
 * "Hattie Alexander"


 * Article Evaluation
 * There seems to be a message that warns that the article has unclear sources due to a lack of inline citations. It seems that the article is a start class article that is a part of several WikiProjects such as: Maryland, Biography: Science/Academia, Johns Hopkins University Project, New York, Women Scientists, Women's history. The lead shows dates, notable contributions, and description of her occupation in a concise manner. In the Early Life and Career sections, there are no inline citations which makes the information provided highly suspect. There could be a section dedicated to research contributions added as well. Additionally, there are only two references used, and the first citation is not easily accessible to check. The citations themselves do at least appear to be relevant to Hattie Alexander, but the information provided does not seem to be easily verifiable. The extra sources provided could have been used as references and inline citations rather in order to back up the information. The organization of the article is coherent even with the scarcity of information present. Overall, the article needs more reliable, verifiable information added with a more comprehensive list of sources.


 * Sources
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045187000000248
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347642800025