User:JMilton3/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Binge eating disorder)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(I have chosen this article since I have known many people throughout my life that have suffered from eating disorders. Although most of the people I have known with eating disorders had conditions such as anorexia and bulimia, there were others that I have met that have BED. It seems to me that BED is not really seen as a disorder to many people, but rather poor individual choices, therefore, I am interested in learning more about BED so that I could educate others and reduce stigma among groups of people that I may interact with.)

Evaluate the article
(The lead section includes a concise, well-written introduction and brief explanation about Binge Eating Disorder. I also believe that the lead section includes brief descriptions about the article's major sections, however, there could be more that was written in the lead section for some sections. For example, there was nothing in the lead section of the article that mentions what causes BED, which was a major section in the article as well as treatment for Binge Eating Disorder. The lead section does not contain any information that was not present within the rest of the article.

Everything in the article was relevant to the topic of Binge Eating Disorder. There was nothing included in the article that distracted me or undermined the topic in any way. Since the article mentioned how BED was included in the DSM-5 since 2013 and was only classified as a feature of other eating disorders before 2013, the information that is present within the article is not dated. There were not any noticeable equity gaps within the article, however it was mentioned in the article that a majority of participants involved in studies done on Binge Eating Disorder were white women. Although there are studies that compare many different demographics, it seems that a significant portion of studies focus on white women.

The tone of the article is very neutral. The article includes only factual evidence and does not involve any conjecture or speculation in any part throughout the article. There are not claims that are heavily biased towards a particular position.

Out of all the citations that I checked out, each of the links worked, however it should be acknowledged that one of the links took me to a webpage that said the information had been moved to another page, but the link was included so every link did work. After looking at the sources, it is evident that the source material supports what has been claimed in the article. Each fact has been referenced with an appropriate and reliable reference. Many of the citations are from peer-reviewed, scientific publications such as PubMed, however I did find a citation that linked to USA Today, which I would argue is not a very reliable source, however, other sources supported the claims that were cited from USA Today. The sources do come from a diverse array of authors and publications.

There were not many conversations going on in the talk page. There is a discussion regarding reorganizing the prognosis section in the article to give the paragraph more coherence.)