Talk:Rosalind Franklin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
February 19, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 25, 2017, July 25, 2019, July 25, 2020, July 25, 2021, and July 25, 2022.

Primary & secondary education in the lead[edit]

I think that it is inappropriate to have Franklin's primary education & secondary education listed in the lead, as I find that this is uncommon for biographies. I believe it be better if we consolidated it in the Education and early life section. Peaceray (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. And you could mention the fee-paying aspect ;-) Interesting (to me) is that Norland Place and St Paul's are only about 500m apart in W London. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lacking objective tone[edit]

The article has a glorification tone rather than objective. Not arguing the facts or sources at all, just the wording and tone.

There is the section Nobel Prize that just says Franklin didn't get the prize and one of her collegues at King's received the NobelPrize in something else.

Then there are parts like "There is no doubt that Franklin's experimental data were used by Crick and Watson to build their model of DNA in 1953". This is opinion. Not arguing its merrits, just the fact that it doesnt belong to a wikipedia article. If its from the source, it needs ""

Again, without quotations: Drawing upon her physical chemistry background, she also skillfully manipulated the critical hydration of her specimens. Skillfully seems to be an opinion without quotation. And if quotations are to be added, there are just too much of it.

I don't think the article is meant to be copy paste of biography pieces.

Thanks for reading Paulthemonk (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much of the current second paragraph of "Recognition of her contribution to the model of DNA" could use substantial improvement with regards to an objective tone (e.g. " a clear timely acknowledgment would have been awkward...") — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Watson at youtube[edit]

I just reverted these edits by Jackjames123 but perhaps I was too hasty? The edits added the following at "Personal life": Watson described her as being on the autism spectrum.[1] Is that video useful? Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johnuniq: I support your reversion, the sentence was too bald and without context and Watson is not qualified to make a diagnosis. However, the video gives a useful view on Franklin's character and on her relationships with other workers in the field. The YouTube video does not appear to be a copyright violation so I suggest we add it the the External links section, and probably also to James Watson. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lacking Citations[edit]

In the "Discovery of DNA structure," there are statements made without proper citations. For example, the last two sentences in the first paragraph of that section need to cite where this information was found. Alhs124 (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Cell Biology Honors[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicoleuzzo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by MatthewGuareschi (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]