User:Lpbak/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
HeLa

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 the topic was mentioned in our most recent Cell Bio unit. I've learned about Henrietta Lacks and the HeLa cell line in the past as well, and discussed the involved ethics in past classes and with others interested in science. The HeLa line has contributed to so many discoveries in cell biology, and I think everyone studying biology and science in general should know Henrietta Lacks' story and what makes these cells so important to research and medical breakthroughs.

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.)

I feel that the lead section was well formulated and, for the most part, summarized all of the important parts of the article. The first paragraph provides a simple overview of what "HeLa" refers to and the cells' source. Some of the phrasing, particularly the sentence, "The line is derived from cervical cancer cells taken on 8 February, 1951, from Henrietta Lacks, a 31-year-old African-American mother of five, who died of cancer on 4 October 1951, and after whom they are named." could be rewritten for better clarity and flow. I also think that the lead section could include some more information on topics which were detailed later in the article. In particular, a sentence or two about the cell line's controversial ethics and the Lacks' family's ongoing legal battles would provide a more complete summary of the topic. For me, one of the first things I think about when HeLa is brought up is the controversy over how these cells were procured and the racial and patient consent elements involved.

This article comprehensively covered many HeLa subtopics without any particular section feeling too bulky or detailed. Many specific topics were hyperlinked to their own articles, which made this piece more streamlined. The content was also up to date, with the most recent legal update dating back to August 2023. The lack of patient consent, racial disparities in medicine, genetics research ethics, and the Lacks' family's opinions and responses were all covered and woven in throughout the article. Most of the inclusions felt concise and on topic. One sentence, "The total number of HeLa cells that have been propagated in cell culture far exceeds the total number of cells that were in Henrietta Lacks's body." under the History section helped demonstrate how widespread this cell line's use is, but felt out of context and unnecessary, despite it being illustrative.

The tone of the article was fairly neutral, and I felt that it mostly presented sensitive topics in a fair and comprehensive way. The research applications outlined were written in a factual, concise manner. If a viewpoint wasn't accepted by the general scientific community, this scrutiny was noted, as was the case for the New species proposal section. Overall, the tone was balanced and objective.

There were a few places where a citation was needed or confirmation of a timeframe was missing; these deficits should definitely be addressed, and improvement would add to the reliability and clarity of the material. The number and variety of sources appears appropriate for an article of this length and complexity. Many of the sources were peer reviewed scientific papers, which tend to be credible. Other sources included articles written about the Lacks family and their views.

The majority of the writing was simple and easy to read. Some sentences, like the one I referenced above in my first paragraph, could definitely be rewritten for clarity's sake. The organization of the material was logical and easy to follow, and paragraphs were appropriate lengths.

The images and diagrams included were appropriately placed in the article to aid in understanding and were well-captioned. Extra, more niche, images were included in a gallery at the end of the article, which prevented an excessive, distracting number of images from being embedded in the article. Many of the images were also "own work" which I thought was particularly interesting for the microscopy images.

This article is rated C-class in all applicable communities, with a top importance ranking for biology and history of science and mid importance ranking for science policy and viruses. It was also connected to Wikiprojects for molecular biology, evolutionary biology, and philosophy. There didn't appear to be any discourse in the Talk section, and most people were discussing small edits to get rid of conflicting information or clarify confusing sentences. It was also noted that this topic was edited in several student Wikipedia assignments for courses like this one. The tones of all of the comments were respectful and neutral, and no controversial topics were touched on in the comments I saw.

Overall, I think this article is helpful in getting a decent understanding of what HeLa cells are and the impacts they've had on medical research. Because the topic is so nebulous, there are a lot of links to other, more specific articles, which prevented this article from being too dense or technical. Because of the simple writing style, even the more complex medical topics were understandable. The sourcing issues mentioned above were scarce, but the article would benefit from attention to those. The article appears well-developed, but I do think there is room to include more information about how medical racism played a part in this in the History section. I can imagine that this is a pretty heavily trafficked page, which likely helps prevent discrepancies or incorrect information.