User:JJlemus/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Neurodiversity

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have personal connections to neurodiversity, and I am interested in how it's viewed in media and activism. This article offers a basic historical background behind the term "neurodiversity" and how it's been used since then.

Evaluating Content
The "Neurodiversity" article had a straightforward introduction by defining neurodiversity, including its abbreviation, and listing common functions it effects. The description introduced main points that would be further discussed in their respective sections, but it clearly gave the impression that this is a historical account of neurodiversity and its involvement in activism and media. Because of this article focuses specifically on neurodiversity, it does include additional links to terms discussed so it did not distract from the main body of the article. Sources appeared to be up-to-date, but some of the older sources that are 10 years old or older could be checked on for relevance. The article does well when describing the autistic and disabled community effected by neurodivergence. The article could be improved by adding additional information on neurodiversity outside of media and controversial activist movements. Medical sources about neurodivergence such as intervention services could be further discussed, and it could easily flow into related sources to autism.

Evaluating Tone
The tone of this article is informative, but shifts towards the end. It begins with an informative tone in the historical segments, but once it transitions to how neurodivergence is treated in media, negativity is more present. This tone could have been carried over from the sources that the authors of this article pulled from. Even though neurodivergent interaction and presence on social media is important, it took up a significant portion of the article.

Evaluating Sources
The citations have working links, and each point in the body has a source to support it. The issue with this article is that not all the sources are proper or neutral sources. There are sources that pull from news articles that are not peer-reviewed and have biased tones that support neurodiversity. There is a substantial amount of sources, but a few poor sources can deflect from the information pulled from proper sources. One source was an opinion on neurodiversity from Psychology Today (#51) and was published as fact in the history section of the article.

Checking the Talk Page
According to the talk page, this article has been under construction and in discussion since 2005. There have been significant comments on making the tone more neutral so it could be suggested that neurodiversity is a charged topic with various strong opinions. There are also issues with using internet slang or language in reference to neurodivergent individuals and non-neurodivergent individuals. In 2022, the main discussions surround whether to merge the term "neurotypical" into this article and how it relates as it refers to non-neurodivergent individuals. This article is involved in several WikiProjects: Medicine/Neurology/Psychiatry, Neuroscience, Physiology, Disability, Autism, and Psychology. There is no article rating listed.