Talk:Reproductive Technology

From SI410
Jump to: navigation, search

1) Length

The Reproductive Technology article is about 720 words, which is much shorter than the 3000 word target length. It seems like the majority is incomplete, but I think they can be easily filled in once the writer continues to write it! With that said, the article does include the three major components of a good article: an opening paragraph with the issue summary, a multiple-section body body in the article, and there are multiple references, so that’s good!

2) Structure

The first component, the opening paragraph, meets the standard of a summary of the topic. The writer introduces the use of reproductive technology. However, I feel that it is a bit short and goes into information that could fit better under the overview, risks, or even the legal issues and ethics section. The later part of the opening paragraph is less of a summary and more about justifying the use or possible misconception with regards to reproductive technology, rather than introducing the questions/ethical issues surrounding it, though I think this is just a matter of phrasing which I do think is written in a neutral, objective way, it just needs the focus shifted. I also feel that it would be helpful to list out common/popular reproductive technologies in a sentence or two to provide the reader with an idea of what counts as one right away.

With the second component, the article contains many subheadings, including the overview, as well as sections on in vitro fertilization, risks, recipients, third party system, DNA testing, legal issues, and ethics, so that’s good! :) I do think that it could be helpful to organize the article a bit differently because currently, it is hard to tell what is a central idea and what is its off branch ideas. For example under the Third party system section, the issue (hidden identity) is made into a bulleted subheading which is nice, but I feel like recipients does not have to be its own section, same with risks. Instead, given that there are multiple types of reproductive technologies, it would be beneficial to include recipients and risks within their given sections like under in vitro fertilization instead, especially since there are sections that address broad topics like legal issues and ethics.

3) Clarity

The issue, or in this case issues, are pretty clear on what they are and why they are a problem. I think there needs to be more in-depth information on exactly what happens. It could be helpful to provide legal cases and real-life examples that highlight the ethical issue that people who have used reproductive technologies have experienced.

4) Objective Reporting

I also believe the article stays objective in its reporting; the writer does not insert their own opinions in, and factual statements are backed with references. In terms of the third component, the references, there are multiple sources from reputable places. However, many of the statements are not linked in the References section as individual statements, but rather link back to the first reference (the number linked in brackets point to the exact same first statement). If a statement comes from the same source, I believe that it should be re-referenced separately.

It seems like the article will be addressing multiple perspectives. Overall, the article is about reproductive technologies which on a societal level are pretty widely used in the United States, so while the writer does a good job of writing about it in a neutral manner, it naturally discusses the various benefits. There is also a risks section that has yet to be written out, but given how the writer has structured the body section, there is balance and neutrality in the content which is good. Again, specifically with the risks section, case studies could be very helpful especially because there are legal consequences that reproductive technologies have that can help the reader gain further understanding.


These are just suggestions though, don't feel like you have to take all or any of my comments!

Overall, you have a really good start! :)