Talk:23andMe/ Health Data
Regarding length, the article is currently around 1010 words (excluding headings and references), which meets the initial word count requirement. You allocated an appropriate amount of writing to each section, so could just expand on current sections for the final draft.
The article does a good job of including the 3 major components. The opening paragraph accurately describes 23andMe’s services, founders, and miscellaneous notable information. It might be beneficial to combine some of these initial sentences, which would vary sentence structure and increase conciseness. The article is also divided into multiple sections: the introduction, history, products and services, FDA controversy, and ethical issues. I’d recommend that you subdivide your sections even further, as certain sections like “Ethical Issues” could benefit from sub-headers for the different concerns. Finally, the author did a good job of citing reliable sources where applicable. However, I think you could add a wider variety of sources from different authors and websites – most of your sources were directly from the 23andme site. In addition, the “Algorithms” example entry on Canvas does a good job of showing how to format sources in APA format, as well as how to use Markup for repeated citations.
The ethical issues in the 23andme article are clear to me; it’s evident that the product has raised concerns about customer privacy, genetically-based discrimination, and risks of hacking. As I mentioned before, I think the Ethical issues section could be separated into sub-headers, which would make your explanations of the ethical concerns clearer, as well as show you which ones could be expanded upon. Right now, some of the ethical issues at stake blend together a little.
The article reports on the ethical issues objectively, and makes sure to include both sides of the “argument” in every case they use. For example, they mention ways that 23andme has tried to improve as a product in response to ethical concerns, which provides a balance. I never noticed the author arguing for any specific perspective – the information was presented objectively and clearly.
