User:Megluther/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Katalin Karikó

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 to evaluate because Katalin Karikó is an extremely timely and relevant uncommon leader and the article is a great example of a recently made Wikipedia page that someone could have made for this class. This page matters as people are extremely grateful to be getting the vaccine but not many people know who spearheaded the science behind it and made it possible. My preliminary impression of the article is that it seems very well put together for being published so recently. It includes the highlights of her early life, education, and career, as well as important scientific contributions, awards and honors, and publications. I notice that the 'awards and honors' section required additional citations for verifications, so it looks like the article is not complete yet.

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 guess I am a bit confused as to the reasoning behind why some phrases are linked to other Wikipedia pages while others are not. For example, the word "Hungarian" is linked to the Wiki page for Hungary, but "mRNA" and "protein therapies" are not. "RNA is linked later in the second paragraph, when it already appears once in the first paragraph. Perhaps it should be linked sooner?

Lead section

In my opinion, the first sentence is a little lacking and fails to introduce Karikó's major accomplishments, which is presumably what a reader would like to find if they visit her page. It does mention that her specialty is RNA-mediated mechanisms, but it does not mention how her work has contributed to the BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines until the last sentence of the second paragraph. I believe that this fact is what she is currently most famous for and it should be mentioned how vital her research has been to the vaccine in the first sentence. I also notice that the introduction mentions the company that she co-founded and was the CEO of, RNARx, but it does not mention it anywhere else in the article. This information should be restated in the 'career' section. Overall, the introduction is a good length and does a good job of introducing her and her important research as well as the key aspects of her career, thus touching on the important sections that follow.

Content

The information in the article is concise and maintains relevancy to the topic in all areas. Yes, this page was made very recently and is thus very up to date, especially in the areas concerning the COVID-19 vaccine. In class, it was mentioned that she had difficulty securing a PI position which is not mentioned in the article. Although some is mentioned, the article somewhat skims over the difficulties and trials that she has had to face in the political side of the research world. The fact that this article exists and documents Karikó and her contributions in STEM and to the COVID-19 vaccine addresses the equity gap and addresses topics related to historically underrepresented and under-recognized individuals. However, Karikó has made contributions to science with her many publications and awards and honors that she has won, so it is unfortunate that she is only just now getting her own Wikipedia page.

Tone and balance

The article does a great job at maintaining a neutral tone despite addressing aspects of Karikó's career where she has been wronged and unjustly left behind and unrecognized, specifically in the 'career' section. I do not see any points that seem heavily biased toward any particular position. The facts mentioned in the article are very objective and non-opinion based, thus no minority or fringe-viewpoints are mentioned. As mentioned in my evaluation of the content, perhaps the viewpoint that she has had to face many obstacles within the research world is underrepresented in this article and does not fully reflect the trials that she has had to face. The lack of mention of this side of the story may incorrectly persuade readers that she has not had to struggle and persevere in a field that she has been undervalued in for so long.

Sources and references

The sources in this article are very timely, I notice that many of them are from 2020-2021 and were retrieved within the last year as well. I also see that many of the sources are news articles with words in their titles like "doubted," "rejected," and "spurned," while the Wiki article itself does a great job of maintaining a neutral tone while gathering information from sources that use more persuasive and opinion-based language. I notice that some facts in the article are not cited. For example, her birth date (how does one find out this information using secondary sources?) and some of her awards and honors that she has been recognized with. Wikipedia is careful to alert readers of this as they are calling for addition citations in this section. I do notice that a variety of sources are used in both English and Hungarian, which is important as Karikó is a Hungarian biochemist and is, I assume, currently living in the US as she is an adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Many of the sources indeed come from peer-reviewed articles, especially when it comes to coverage of her research. Upon doing some digging I think that this article utilizes the best sources currently available. I checked some of the links within Wikipedia as well as links to outside sources and they appear to all be up to date and in order.

Organization and writing quality

The writing is very clear and professional and sticks to the facts rather than opinions and assumptions. The article is very easy to read and does not dive too deeply into the dense and overly-detailed aspects of her research, making this page more approachable for a wider audience. In general, everything is listed logically with clear indications of a time line and transition words are used to maintain the flow of the article and help readers more easily follow along with the progression of ideas and information. The only part that does not flow, in my opinion, is the last sentence in the 'career' section which seems somewhat randomly placed and awkward, but I know that Wikipedia prioritizes reporting of only the facts and being concise, so maybe it is fine by their standards. Additionally, I do not notice any misspellings or major grammatical mistakes. The only typo I notice is that there should be a comma right directly preceding Karikó's direct quotation in the second paragraph of the 'career' section. I also notice some poor and confusing formatting, as 'scientific career' is oddly placed in the summary box on the upper right-hand part of her page. I am wondering if that is a mistake as it does not fit the formatting of the rest of the box. Overall, the article is broken down into logical sections that reflect the most important and note-worthy aspects of her life and contributions.

Images and media

There seems to be a good balance between words and images, as the article is not lengthy. The only image is of Katalin Karikó in the summary box located in the upper right-hand side. It appears below her name and does not require any context as it is a professional photo, so no caption is needed. It is symmetrically placed and visually appealing. The photo is listed to be from Wikipedia Commons but it is not abundantly clear where exactly it originated from. However, it appears to follow Wikipedia's rules and regulations. The article could perhaps use an important image from one of her papers in order to enhance the understanding of the subject matter of her research, but if they are all too complicated then I can understand why one is not included.

Talk page discussion

There does not seem to be much discussion on this talk page. It mainly concerns questions regarding simple factual information and calls for citations from other articles that have been linked in Karikó's article. The article is stated to be of interest in WikiProjects concerning biography/science and academia, women scientists, and molecular biology/cell biology. However, it is rated 'C-class' and 'low importance' within these projects, which I find interesting and dismaying, considering the extreme relevance of the COVID-19 vaccine right now. Looking at the categories, I notice one that says 'Low-importance Women scientists articles' which makes me angry that it is considered and so blatantly labeled as such! The way Wikipedia discusses this topic is very different from how we discuss these uncommon leaders in class, as we take a closer look into the personal lives and struggles that these minorities have had to battle and what makes them inspiring.

Overall impression

It appears that the major shortcomings of this article are lack of sources, largely in the 'awards and honors' section as well as how this article is categorized: 'Low-importance Women scientists articles.' On a positive note, the article does a fantastic job of reporting the facts and summarizing Karikó's research and accomplishments such that they are easily digestible and understandable to all audiences, regardless of scientific background. It also looks like her 'career' section ends in early 2013, so this needs to be updated to better reflect her contributions to the COVID-19 vaccine, which have taken place from 2020-now, although I do see that her more recent activities and accomplishments are mentioned in the 'scientific contributions' section. I look forward to keeping tabs on this page and to see how it gets updated in the days and months to come!