User:WeepingBritney/Breast cancer prof review

Quality as Teaching Aid

 * Is the level of this article appropriate for junior- and senior-level undergraduates? If not, what level of reader (or range of levels) would it be appropriate for?
 * Is the topic of the article presented in a logical sequence?
 * Would you recommend this article for your undergraduate students? If not, why not?

This article discusses some interesting epidemiology and treatment topic, but is very weak when it comes to basic science. In fact, I wouldn’t recommend it at all for that. In addition, I question the accuracy of some of the statements and conclusions, particularly about potential environmental causes of breast cancer.

Quality as Summary of the Topic

 * Does the article cover its topic completely?
 * Are the basic concepts and terminology of the topic introduced?
 * Is the amount of detail appropriate for the length of the article?
 * Are there any glaring errors, omissions or misleading statements?
 * How precise and/or quantitative is the article?
 * Is the article up-to-date? If not, when would this article have been a current review of its topic?
 * Is the historical development of the topic covered?

As mentioned above, there is very little discussion of the “science” of breast cancer. For example, it does not describe hormone receptors, many of the genes known to be involved in breast cancer, what kinds of genetic changes are involved in different stages of the disease, etc.

Readability

 * Is the writing clear and well-organized?
 * Does the article have good flow?
 * Is the article redundant anywhere?

It’s ok to read.

Figures

 * Are the figures clear, and do they help explain the topic?
 * Are the figures consistent with each other and with the text?
 * Do the figures have any exceptional features, such as being three-dimensional?

There were not many figures and they were not very useful.