User:Mountainrose127/sandbox

Article Evaluation: 23andMe

Talk page shows a lot of concern with the article coming off like an ad, but I didn't really get that impression. All of the information seemed relevant, and I didn't find any of it distracting. However, one person on the talk page mentions that the largest problem with this article is that is has bee sourced from company press releases rather than independent secondary sources. I can easily imagine that there are not as many secondary sources talking about 23andMe in as much detail as 23andMe talks about itself. Most of the sources are valid, coming from FDA press releases, but many are also from popular news outlets like Wired and the New York Times. This article is a part of many different WikiProjects, and has plenty of discussion in the talk page about the bias of sources and the relevance of certain sentences or sections. It is C-rated, which is what I sought out. While we haven't discussed 23andMe, this article is certainly seeking to be more neutral on the company than any conversation I've had about it in a class, where professors and students often feel strongly about if 23andMe is an exciting future prospect or a slightly shady, untrustworthy company that has people pay to give their data to a drug discovery company. I've heard the argument be made that pharmaceutical companies should be paying people for access to their genetic information rather than the other way around.