Talk:Neurotechnology
1. Length
The length of your article is not quite at 3,000 words yet, but I believe that with the sections and topics you have created, you are on the right track to reaching the 3,000-word requirement on the final revision of this draft. In particular, the "Background" section was a great introduction to the article that I feel can be greater expanded upon in your revision to further add length to your article. You began speaking about many of the early studies and publications surrounding Brain-Computer Interfaces, which would be informative topics to continue developing further so readers can have a better understanding of the background of the topic. In some of the latter "Ethical Implication" sections, you also started to develop descriptions of certain ethical challenges that have the potential to be longer sections with more information. After completing these sections, you should be able to reach 3,000 words.
2. Structure
The article does include the 3 major components of a good article including an opening paragraph that summarizes the issue, multiple body paragraphs, and statements are backed up with references to reliable sources. As mentioned earlier in the opening paragraph, I think that your background introduction could be further expanded upon to describe more about the development of Brain-Computer Interfaces in their early years and how that has influenced how the technology has developed further in modern times. Your current opening paragraph only hints at some of the early discoveries of the technologies. By describing those topics in more detail, the opening paragraph will feel more like a holistic summary.
You also have many well-organized body sections that effectively cover the applications and ethical implications of the technology. However, the "Civilian Devices" section seems to be incomplete and many later "Ethical Implication" sections after "Hacking" could further detail how the technology leads to these ethical implications similar to how you described it for the "Privacy", "Autonomy", and "Hacking" sections. These current sections seem to describe the ethical concern but do not fully connect back to how the technology creates those concerns. If these connections are created in more detail, these sections would feel more complete.
As I read your article, I took note of how great of a job you did with backing up your statements with references to reliable sources. Every time you create a statement or describe an advancement in the BCIs, you consistently reference it to a reliable source. Great job here! The sources were all reliable as well, as they are all from trusted scientific articles and publications. The only improvement I can suggest is to expand on some of these references a bit more in the "Background" and "Ethical Implication" sections with additional neutral commentary surrounding their meaning as sometimes they felt like statements that needed to be expanded upon more.
3. Clarity
The issue at stake surrounding the ethical implications of these advanced Brain-Computer Interfaces being hacked is very clear to me after reading your article. These technologies have the potential to revolutionize our human capabilities with technologies but could have drastic implications to security and privacy if left unchecked. In this way, I believe that you did a great job describing what Brain-Computer Interfaces are and their applications in the beginning sections and then flowing the conversation to some of its ethical concerns. However, in some of the later "Ethical Implication" sections about "Input Manipulation", "Matrix of Domination", "Distributive Justice", "Normality", and "Identity," I felt that I did not have a complete understanding of the importance of the ethical concern. This is expected as this was only a first draft, but I think further developing those sections would lead to increased clarity surrounding the ethical concerns of the topic.
4. Objective reporting (Neutral point of view)
The article did a good job reporting on ethical issues and controversies objectively and from a neutral point of view. You did not state personal opinions or argue for anything and all statements were properly backed up by reliable sources. The point of improvement in this category would be to describe more sides of controversies surrounding ethical concerns. In your current article, you do a great job describing how the technology could be exploited and lead to ethical implications, but you do not talk about the benefits and positive side of the technology that is the trade-off of these concerns. I think that if you added these multiple perspectives on the same issue, your objective reporting could be further improved.
