Talk:Project Nightingale

Length

The length of the article is not yet 3,000 words. It currently only has 872 words but I assume that is because it is just a draft and that the author will add enough words to get to the correct length for the final draft. I think that the short length is due more to the detail and length of the sections and not a lack of an important section. I like the topics outlined by the headers but it would help to add subheaders under each and expand in each of those to reach the needed length. You could add more to the background section about who started the project, how big the team is, and the historical context of what was happening with other tech companies or the economy at the time that might have spurred the idea or project.

Similarly, I think you can add more context to the “How Google Started Working in Healthcare:” section by describing more thoroughly why the previous health ventures did not work or what people’s objections, why they decided to relaunch them when they did, and more thoroughly explaining (with a sentence or two each) each of the new projects.

In the “What Project Nightingale Uses:” section you should elaborate on how the algorithms work and expand more on the treatments that it recommends and the type of diseases it helps predict, potentially also adding data on the success rates of these predictions and treatment recommendations.

The “Ethics of Project Nightingale:” section can add a lot of length to your post once you expand it. This section has good details about ethical concerns yet they are each just listed as a sentence. Each one of those sentences should be a paragraph explaining the concern, why it is ethically concerning if the company has addressed or tried to work on this concern, and/or what the press/public has said about it. Similarly, the final paragraph of the section can have a lot more information about the security problems recently and about Google’s data breach.

Finally, the “competition” section should have more information about the IBM project. You can include information about how the project compares to Google’s and if people are concerned about it ethically. You can also mention other competitors that are less directly related.

Structure

The general structure of the article is good but it can definitely be improved upon. The opening paragraph is a good summary of the project however it does not summarize the ethical issues related. The body of the article is in more than one section, but I think the page would benefit from some sub-sections to add more breaks and clarity. But, the sources definitely seem reliable and the author did a very good job of including many sources throughout the article. Potentially, the author could have pulled more statistics and numbers from their sources or found more scientific sources to add an additional level of support and research that is clear to readers.

Clarity

The article was very clearly written and concise for most of it however the ethics section of it was the least clear. The first paragraph in the “Ethics of Project Nightingale:” section is kind of confusing. I can’t tell if you are saying that it is ethically ok or not based on those facts. I think if you added subheaders that clearly listed the ethical concerns for each one it would be clearer. Additionally, the ethical issues are all listed as sentences but they would be much clearer if you expanded on them as I explained above.

Objective reporting (Neutral point of view)

The article is written from an objective point of view and contains no personal opinions. I think this would be heightened if the ethics section was expanded. If the author included both Google’s and the public opinions on the issues it would add an additional level of objectivity. Overall tho the article is definitely objective and has a very good objective tone.