Speaking as a woman, I'm pretty sure you're wrong that other women would be up in arms if there were more straight-up articles about womens' achievements.
"But all they did was talk about her work, and left out the obstacles she's had to overcome to achieve it!"
There are even those who would, from a more niche women's studies angle, critique a strictly work-substantive biography for the "masculinised" psychological priorities it reflects and that it fails to capture the "unique female experience" or what have you. These are usually allied to the folks who bemoan the "medicalisation" of pregnancy by male technocrats, and with it the suppression of ineffable qualitative experiences of femininity that come with pregnancy and giving birth.
These are real things. The matter of a reasonably universal and inter-subjective conception of gender equality is unwieldy.
I'm sure I'll be downvoted, but I'm coming from a place of sincere intellectual commitment to this concern. There is a rift among the feminist-minded about whether women should be "neutered" in this way in our observational language. The way this polemic shakes out overall seems to be opportunistic; sometimes women receive distinctive treatment, when it's convenient, and other times not, when it's (reputedly) oppressive.