User:Jpow05/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Neurodiversity

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.)

The reason I chose the article is because it is a topic that I feel very connected to emotionally because, based on the article, I would be considered neurodivergent or neurodiverse. I know that I matter, and the information provided in the article should be used to spread awareness and information about those under the neurodivergent umbrella. Being educated on this topic can allow those who are more ignorant on the subject to understand neurodiverse people and understand how and why these people will react differently to different stimulis or situations. The more understanding being put into this topic, and frankly any topic, the more proper accommadations can be made to help those who need it.

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.)

Lead Section
 * The lead introductory sentence doesn't give a concise and clear description of the article's topic. Instead, it only defines what the word "neurodiversity" means. While this helps know what the word means, it doesn't provide almost any information on what the entire article is going to be about in regards to neurodiversity itself.
 * The lead section does have brief descriptions of the article's major sections, but it doesn't include all of them in the lead section.
 * The article does not have information not present in the article, rather the lead doesn't have information from the article included in the section.
 * The lead is concise for what it offers, but it still needs to include information from the other major sections in the article that were not included.

Content


 * Some of the content is relevant to the topic. However, parts of it do not relate to the topic. I believe the topics "double empathy problem theory" and "within disability rights movements" should be excluded and written as separate articles on their own. While they are talking about neurodiversity, they are talking about completely different topics regarding the overall concept of neurodiversity. I believe they are too specific for this article alone.
 * The content is up to date.
 * The topics "double empathy problem theory" and "within disability rights movements" don't necessarily belong because they get too specific about that topic alone and are not the major topic of neurodiversity.
 * I believe the article does deal with both Wikipedia's equity gaps and addresses topics to an underrepresented population. It is involving the gap of knowledge on the underrepresented population of the neurodivergent.

Tone and Balance


 * The article is neutral with the information.
 * There seem to be no claims that are heavily biased in the article.
 * There don't seem to be any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented in the article.
 * The minority viewpoints are accurately described in the article. However, I do believe the information in the section "reception and controversies" needs to be explained more by the author on the criticisms received on the neurodiversity paradigm.
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader to be in favor of one position or another in the article whatsoever.

Sources and References


 * All facts in the article are backed up by reliable sources of information.
 * It does reflect the available literature on neurodiversity.
 * All of the sources are from at least the 2010s, an abundance of them being from the 2020s.
 * There is a very diverse spectrum of authors and also individuals who are neurodiverse/neurodivergent themselves, including a quote that was stated by them in some parts of the article.
 * The article uses both peer-reviewed articles and some random websites. While both are used in the article, the author does tend to have more emphasis on the information from the peer-reviewed articles than from the websites they used in the article.
 * The links do work.

Organization and writing quality


 * The article is written concisely and is easy to read as well. I did not find any errors in the writing, and while the sections reflect the major topic, I believe because some of these bigger topics do not belong in this article specifically that they seem out of place overall. However, within the subsection itself such as "within disability rights movement", the subheadings below relate to that topic, but it is too specific for neurodiversity as a whole.

Images and Media


 * There are few images in the article. They are laid out according to the topic discussed at hand, and they have brief captions that explain the picture quickly but sufficiently.

Talk page discussion


 * The only conversation that was had was another user stating that the historical records need to be edited for correction. The user also offers some articles to help add more support on the topic of how mainstream acceptance affects those in the neurodiverse community.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated C. It is a part of the following WikiProjects: Psychology, Medicine, Disability, Autism, and Dyslexia
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There seems to be a large amount of discussion from archives of the article itself. It also differs from the discussions we have had in class as the author of the article has discussions where they are giving a summary of what edits they have done to the article for others to be informed about.

Overall Impressions


 * The article's overall status is accurate to the rating it received. While it is very informative about neurodiversity, I believe the topics I listed above shouldn't be included in this article as it is too specific for the overall concept of what neurodiversity is. They are good topics or can be articles on their own, but including them in this article itself does not tie well with the rest of the information provided. Another strength is that the information is not biased or meant to persuade the reader to think a certain way about the topic for any reason necessary. However, I think the article could be improved by having some more opposing views along with the views the author has on the topic to offer more discussion upon the neurotypical and neurodivergent. The article is definitely well developed, but it seems to be "overdeveloped" in a way where the two topics of the double empathy problem theory and the disability rights movement should be separate articles on their own.