This article, “The Collatz Conjecture: Beauty or Conundrum of Mathematics?”, Arghyadeep Das, a writer for Medium.com explains the problem and the probability of finding a counterexample. The author uses quotes and proofs by famous mathematicians as evidence. The audience is a more of a non-academic and mathematically inclined one. In short, the author introduces the problem and explains the seaweed representation while talking about how a counterexample could spill water over the work of many mathematicians.
This article is not very credible alone because of the non-mathematjical credentials of the author. However, the facts are consistent with what I read in other articles, making the information correct. I think the main use of this article could be explaining to the audience how finding a counterexample is a current focus of mathematicians in the chapter relating to current attempts to tackle the problem. However, I think this article was more of a repetition of old facts than it was an introduction to new information.
Depends on the audience, right? Is the article introducing facts new to the specific audience?