User:Annaharden/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cognitive disengagement syndrome

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I had formerly heard of "Sluggish Cognitive Tempo," as cognitive disengagement syndrome used to be called, and found it interesting because it was presented as a form of ADHD that is often present in girls. This Wikipedia article, however, distinguishes Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome from ADHD and does not say that it is more prevalent in female populations. Regardless of how it is classified, this topic piques my interest because it details a form of an inattentive disorder which is not given as much attention as other more common disorders such as ADHD or dyslexia.

It matters that we study cognitive disengagement syndrome because of the people who are affected by it. It is important to understand conditions that people may have so that we can know what they are struggling with and how to help them. For someone who struggles with cognitive disengagement syndrome, an article like this could help him or her better understand the way their brain works.

My preliminary impression of the article is favorable. I found the article interesting and am excited to take up this article this semester and add a fresh perspective on it. I am particularly interested to know that the DSM-5 does not include this disorder in their manual, and I am curious how the conversation surrounding whether cognitive disengagement syndrome is a true disorder will develop in coming years.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section has a good opening sentence which describes cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS) in an adequate amount of detail. The first paragraph is only two sentences, however, so it does not provide a broad enough overview of the entire article. The lead section also does not provide a snapshot of information that is later detailed in the article. Instead it focuses on contrasting ADHD and CDS. This could be modified by briefly comparing and contrasting the two disorders and then going into other important sections of the article within the lead section.

Content

The content of the article was relevant and balanced, with a proper amount of emphasis placed on each section. I do not think the symptoms of ADHD should be necessary to include in the section about "signs and symptoms" since this an article primarily about CDS.

Tone and Balance

The article does maintain a neutral perspective. Even when discussing the controversy surrounding the reality of CDS, it is clear that the Wikipedia authors are simply presenting a perspective on the issue and not claiming it as their own. It would be good, though, to present the other side of the controversy. Specifically, instead of just citing authors who are not in favor of the additional CDS diagnosis, the article could also express why it is valid that CDS be considered a true disorder.

Sources and References

The article appears to be well-sourced and include many references from scientific journal articles instead of news sources. However, an exception to this is in the "Controversy" section. One news article is cited 4 times, forming the bases of the bulk of this section. It would be preferable to find more credible sources from multiple places.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article could be more concise. There are repetitive parts. For example, in the lead section, the article mentions in various ways that CSD is distinct from ADHD. It discusses in multiple places in the lead section, too, that there can be comorbidity in CSD and ADHD. It was a good addition to break symptoms up into the sub-headings of social behavior, attention deficits, and executive function. The article was in general well-organized into to sub-headings that covered a decent range.

Images and Media

There is one image that depicts a cartoon character who may have CSD. One downside of this image is that the text in it is not in English. In addition, the image could be seen as turning CSD into something comical. Perhaps an image of a struggling or absent minded young student (similar to the picture on the ADHD page) would be more beneficial.

Talk page discussion

One conversation people are having in the talk page is whether there is enough evidence to support that CSD is its own distinct condition apart from ADHD as well as reasons why researchers may have other incentives to making this disorder more known in the mainstream. It is also a matter of debate whether people with CSD should be considered "sluggish." There is also talk about whether the "Controversy" section of this article gets at the heart of the debate. The article is rated within the "C-class" of Wikipedia's content assessment scale which means there may be some areas in which better organization is needed as well as additions or deletions.

Overall impressions

I found this article interesting and informative. Its major strengths include the way in which it distinguishes CSD from ADHD to the point one could believe that perhaps CSD should be considered its own condition apart from ADHD. However, it could grow in further detailing the controversy so that one can better understand what the main arguments are for and against the inclusion of CSD in the DSM and other diagnosis criteria. Another way the article could improve is in organization and in condensing repetitive parts. There seems to be an overemphasis on comparing and contrasting ADHD and CSD all throughout the article. Perhaps CSD could be spoken of as its own disorder first. The article is growing towards "completeness," but perhaps other sections could be included such as presentations, comorbidities, causes, brain structure, and differences between children and adults.