User:Alexsteffens/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this topic because I have personal experience with ADHD and I have written a paper about it in another psychology class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I feel as though the lead is a bit long, but it gives a brief description of each of the sections in the article and there are a lot of sections. Overall, I think it is a good introduction to the topic and gives a brief overview of the disorder as a whole.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
I think that the content is a strength of this article. It is all relevant to ADHD and is up-to-date as far as I know.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is very neutral and presents only factual information about ADHD. As with many mental disorders, the cause of the disorder can't be narrowed down to one thing so the article does a very good job at presenting all theories in an unbiased way.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
This article is very well cited with citations after almost every sentence and a total of 246 sources. The links do work and after skimming the resource list, they all appear to be reliable, scholarly sources. The sources do reflect current research and literature on the subject.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The organization of this article is very well done. The article is broken up into sections based on components of the disorder (Symptoms, Causes, Diagnosis, etc.) and these sections make sense when reading the article as a whole. The information is concisely written and there are no obvious grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are not many images in this article but the ones that are included are very helpful. The main media used is graphs and tables that help the reader to better understand the information presented. The images and media are useful in organizing the information.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
This article is part of multiple WikiProjects related to health, medicine, psychiatry, and psychology. The main topics of conversation surrounding this article are about keeping the article up-to-date with current research, specifically with treatment and medications. The Talk page for this article is definitely different from a classroom setting because most people are focused on specific details regarding the most current research while in Psychopathology we just learned an overview of the disorder.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article has reached the "good article" status meaning that it has been reviewed by various people and met the qualifications necessary. The article is factual, unbiased, and verifiable. I think the strengths of this article would be the amount of cited information and concise organization. The article provides an accurate overview of the disorder. I think it could be improved by including more images or graphs that aid the reader in understanding the material.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: