User:HanyuBao/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Diamond v. Chakrabarty


 * Article Evaluation
 * Mostly, the contents of the article are relevant to the topic, which are divided into several parts, guiding readers to learn topic. Citations are reliable since many of them are scientific journals and legal documents. However, there are some sections are just subjective declarations without references or citations. In terms of the statement of the case, the article keeps a neutral tone well, but the article tends to be biased in discussion sections, such as "Dissent" and "Legal implications." Besides, even though paragraphs are concise so it is easy to read, adding some details might also contribute to the article for better understand.

Sources
 * Here are some possible academic journals I could use as references to improve the article.
 * Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 - Supreme Court 1980 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3095713882675765791
 * Ratcliffe, Suzanne. “The Ethics of Genetic Patenting and the Subsequent Implications on the Future of Health Care.” Touro Law Review, vol. 27, no. 2, Nov. 2011, pp. 435–460.
 * “A Post-Ksr Consideration of Gene Patents: The 'Obvious to Try' Standard Limits the Patentability of Genes.” Marquette Law Review, vol. 93, no. 1, Fall 2009, pp. 285–308.
 * Padua Soto, Marielys. “The Case of Diamond V. Chakrabarty: A Look at Microbiology through the Lens of Patent Law.” Revista de Derecho Puertorriqueño, vol. 59, no. 1, July 2019, pp. 51–70.

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Ariosa v. Sequenom


 * Article Evaluation
 * Contents are relevant to the topic, but some citations tend to be not reliable, because they are media report, which could be subjective or biased. The tone of the article is not neutral since there are lots of biased language in the section "Commentary," which indicate that the court's decision is regrettable. According to the article, I feel that the editors tend to criticize the decision of the court, but I think the article should not lead to one-sided view.


 * Sources
 * Here are some possible academic journals I could use as references to improve the article.
 * Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F. 3d 1371 - Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2015 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7423019950723776446
 * Johnson, Alexa. “A Crisis of Patent Law and Medical Innovation: The Category of Diagnostic Claims in the Wake of Arioso v. Sequenom.” Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine, vol. 27, Jan. 2017, pp. 435–461.
 * Cook-Deegan, Robert, and Subhashini Chandrasekharan. “Sequenom v. Ariosa - The Death of a Genetic Testing Patent.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 375, no. 25, Dec. 2016, pp. 2418–2419.
 * Tycake, Nicholas, and Eliza Mallon. “The Patentability of Diagnostic Methods.” Australasian Biotechnology, vol. 26, no. 3, Oct. 2016, pp. 79–80.
 * Kooner, Sukhpal. “Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. V. Sequenom, Inc.” Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law, vol. 26, no. 1, Fall 2015, pp. 75–82.

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources