The article was very well written and I loved how the author included a lot of background information as well as conclusive data. It’s format was a little difficult for me to read and took a second to adjust to. Overall I think the writing style of the article was very informative, it gave the right amount of information. It provided a good balance between being statistical and being brief and so that it kept the readers attention without getting too technical. This article’s limited but skillful use of numbers was great in bringing about the importance of this new drug.
I felt as though the article included the molecular drawings because they were a key aspect of the research. Since it took nearly “five years” to come up with the exact structure, it is a proud show case of the researchers work. In addition, it could prove as a means of incentive for other researchers familiar with the drugs, but maybe with different names to conduct research as well.
An article like this might not be in the Times today due it’s detailed information on the research and scientific facts. Many articles today are brief, and in a sense click bait, intended to get the viewers attention. However, I find that more articles like this are needed, for the simple reason while it was lengthy, it was very informative. I actually enjoyed reading this article due to its balance of technical and relatively relevant information. The article kept the readers attention because of the things they could benefit from it while doing a very good job of relaying the hard scientific information that it took to get to these “benefits”.