My first reaction while reading through the article was that it is difficult to follow. First of all, this is a topic that is heavily based on scientific terminology. For example, the doctors who are part of the study are quoted often, and they reference things I can’t understand. One example of this is, “may dilate the cervix but not result in expulsion of the conceptus raises the possibility of their use prior to curettage,” where there is a multitude of terms that I would need defined. Clearly this is intended for a specific audience with a background in health and chemistry. There are even pictures of molecular compounds included, which would be great for a scientist who is researching this topic. Comparing this to the purposes of the New York Times articles written today, I would say even health and science articles are intended for more general audiences in modern day.

Not only are the words in the article difficult to follow, but there is just too much information. In only eight pages the authors talk about prostaglandins in induced labor, as contraceptives, and in relation to hypertension; just to name a couple of things. Although it is all referring to prostaglandins, this is too large a topic to cover in one article. That is like writing an article about the circulatory system, but not specifying one area. I think I would actually enjoy reading more in depth about one of the topics covered rather than read superficially about all these topics.

Another thing I would critique about this article is that it is clearly written in the preliminary stages of research in this topic. A lot of the studies mentioned are empirically based or little is yet known, which makes me question the validity of the article. If I am reading a lengthy article from the New York Times, I want to make sure that it is solid information. However, if this is in fact the most up to date research, then it is worth sharing with the public.