Talk:Rosalind Franklin/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rating- B

Why? Although the article does provide good background information and is written in a way that the scientific information is understandable to a lay person, it does have a definite tone or bent that was very noticeable. Reading this article, I got the sense it was written as a response to other articles rather than as a stand-alone source of information.

I am aware of criticisms of the treatment Franklin received as a woman in the field of science. From this article I get the sense that she faced no undeserved difficulties at any time and all controversies regarding her work are due to posthumous speculation on the part of other authors. There is also the addition of the funeral card for the double helix, for which I could find no context for the joke, other than the caption "she was wrong!". Information on the nomination and awarding procedures for the Nobel Prize are included with reasons for her ineligibility, but I didn't see a clear topic statement: there is a controversy in which some people feel she was denied inclusion in the Nobel Prize unjustly.

I am coming away from the article with the feeling that Rosalind Franklin was a minor figure who did limited work in genetics, and controversies regarding her recognition are unfounded. Since Franklin is not an example of scientist whose work has been discredited, I don't feel that is an appropriate final impression. I wonder if some simple clarifying statements might be enough to give the article a more balanced feel. Diggnity 04:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)