User:EllaR1989/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I chose to evaluate an article about personalized medicine. Personalized medicine

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because it is a new emerging area in medicine. As technology has advanced, we have been able to tailor medicine more toward individuals. Science is now beginning to look into genetics and the possible ability to use genetics to personalize medicine even further. Going into healthcare this is a very interesting topic to me and I am very curious if this will become bigger in the future.

Evaluate the article
Relevant: Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. I did not feel distracted while reading the article, it was very organized by topic using headers so I knew what about the topic I was reading. It had a nice flow to it helping the reader gain understanding as they read.

Out of date: I couldn't find when the article was first published, but it was last edited Feb. 15th, 2024. The article did well on including on information throughout the years as the technology grew. It included information from 2005 up to 2020 and all between. It may be helpful to see some more recent information if new findings and information has came out between 2020 to now, but I am uneducated on if there has been.

Gaps: I did not find any noticeable gaps. The article did a good job at introducing the topic, then going back and explaining the background. It was very helpful that the article looped back and educated the reader on human genetics before going back in and explaining how it can be used in care.

Improvements: I did not find any noticeable improvements that I would change. The article was very in depth and included a lot of scientific information. I was unable to fully read the article, I am sure in some places topics could be explained better to a non scientific reader, but I did not find a specific example of this

Tone: The article maintained a neutral tone. Throughout the reading I did not pick up on biases or persuasion surrounding the topic. The article stuck to maintaining informational and included no opinion. It did a good job of showing all the aspects to the topic, explaining how it can be used in good ways and also telling the reader areas of improvements and possible biases.

Citations: There was a lot of links imbedded in the article, all the ones I clicked worked. This article did have lots on complex topics that non scientific readers may not understand. It did a really good job linking pages to these topics so if the reader wanted to learn more or did not understand something they could click and get a better understanding.

References/sources: It does have a very extensive reference page. This is a good sign that lots of the information in the article is backed up by somewhere else.

Talk page: There is discourse in the talk page about what personalized medicine is and how it should be used.