User:Jdtully/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The article I evaluated was ADHD.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose the article on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) because it has been an area of study that I have personally been interested in for several years now. As an individual that has been personally diagnosed with ADHD, learning more about the disorder has been a point of interest for me for awhile and has helped me learn more about myself in the process.

My initial impression of the article was a mix of both shock and anticipation. The amount of information present on the Wiki article is astounding to me, but at the same time, I knew the quantity of available information could be fairly large with all of the research that has been put into the study of ADHD over time. Seeing how many sources were presented in the article and how areas of information were categorized and separated shows me that a lot of work has gone into making sure this particular article is as good as possible.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead for the ADHD article lengthier than most I have encountered so far, but was still concise and acted as an intro for some of the larger sub headers that would occur later on in the article. While it does provide some hard data in the lead itself, it does so in a way that feels introductory to the topics appearing later and uses those same data sets in a more in-depth breakdown farther into the article.

The content present in the article is relevant all the way through and seems to be up-to-date, with edits made to the article as recent as 9/4/21 (today). None of the information presented seemed to be particularly out of place to me. Additionally, the article specifically addresses information related to underrepresented populations, including references to misdiagnoses in minority races.

The article itself is written in a very neutral tone, presenting research based information in forms that have no specific bias. Viewpoints presented in the article seem to be represented fairly and minority/fringe viewpoints are specified as such in the writing. After previewing some of the recent edits, it is clear that editors work hard to make sure the information presented in the article is accurate while listing potentially fringe information in such a way that allows it to exist while still providing a disclaimer for readers.

Information in the article is well cited and the sources utilized are well organized. Some of sources present are very current, while some are from older research, and are written by a wide array of authors. From all the sources I previewed, all of them were from peer-reviewed journals, either physical or online, and had working links.

The writing for the article was concise and well-organized. There were no grammatical or spelling errors that I noticed.

Images included in the article are fairly rare but are well captioned and presented in locations where they serve as an appropriate visual aid.

The Talk page for the article had a few recent discussions, with a number of authors making regular changes in the form of adding more content or editing recent editions to make sure they were up to Wikipedia standards for publicly presented information.

I would rate the ADHD article very well for how well it is organized, how detailed its sources are, and how well it is maintained. I believe the article's strengths are the sheer quantity of information used to back up the information presented as well as how well easy it is to navigate. I would say this article is well developed and complete as a presentation of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and the information that is available to the public.