This article is a brief description of what a company, Precision BioSciences, founded in Durham, North Carolina does. The article is organized nicely, and starts off with a small paragraph describing what the company is about. The article's opening paragraph is good, but describes what the entire article is about very briefly. It does further discuss what was mentioned in the intro later in the article, without including anything unnecessary. The topic this article is trying to relate to is "Engineering Modern Medicine." I think that this relates well because the article is about a company who is working to create and make better medicine, as they specialize in clinical trials. The article is also up to date, as the last edit to the article's page was June 18, 2024. The article seems to have only relevant information. It talks about some past and present projects, but doesn't go into detail. All of the information is helpful to the article and adds additional depth and insight into the company's works. The tone of the article is just informative. It has a lot of details about what the company does, and doesn't go beyond that. Because the article is about a company, written by the company itself, it is factual, leaving out opinions. It doesn't persuade the reader to think in any exact way or direction. The sources are within recent years and all of the links I clicked worked. The sources were a mix of in depth articles, and some shorter. Most of them talk about projects and deals that Precision Biosciences have been involved in. All of the sources go with the article and are not random. Overall, the content is easy to read. However two of the main topics are a little bit more complex, as they talk about clinical trials and ARCUS genome editing. For a reader who doesn't know what either of those things are, the article explains it well enough for the reader to be able to understand most of it. I also didn't notice any spelling or grammatical errors when reading through it. However, the article is rated as an S class through Wikipedia, so there is definitely room for improvement. Something that could be added to improve this article could include having a conclusion paragraph, or something besides the intro to tie everything together. In conclusion, this article was organized well, it was clear, and relevant to the group project. The strengths of this article were its content, relevance to the group's work, and it being up-to-date.
