I wish more science reporting was written this way. Take the big topic apart into a finite number of blocks and work through them: introduce concept, explain concept, impact concept, tie to next paragraph. In the end I was able to follow through multiple topics I knew noting about and get a high level understanding.
What I find from media science reporters is often missing background or context (or just flat out wrong) with oodles of impact (supposedly). From scientific journal articles I often lack the required background to even follow the abstract and almost certainly not the jargon filled paper (whether they are written that way on purpose I have my own opinions about).
I know you can't spend time explaining every building block concept, but the selection of what gets background and the succicintess of the explanations here is really nice for me.
My wife and I got into an argument about this when it was time to switch our kids car seat so I pulled up their recommendations and read their sources. Their cited evidence doesn't support their recommendation at all (nor did it when they first made the rec in 2011).
Their 2011 rear facing recommendation is based on a retracted article and their 2016 rec is based on the same article's data except using a smaller dataset which they acknowledge is not statistically significant. The only other data cited looks at rear facing Swedish children compared to _unbelted_ Swedish children.
I went back and reread it to make sure I was remembering right. I'm dumbfounded that this was allowed not only to stand as a rec, but was increased (deepened? made stronger?) when they had even less data than they did before. I get that it feels like it should be safer, but that's not science and I would have expected a group making medical and safety recs to maintain a higher standard.
Well done!