User:Loyola2024/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the "Adverse childhood experiences" wikipedia page.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article to evaluate because it is of high importance to the fields of psychology and social work and it has a low C rating. The intersection of importance and rating mean, for this article, that its improvement should be considered both crucial and a priority.

Evaluate the article
The "Adverse childhood experiences" wikipedia article does not seem to be thoroughly edited by many individuals, as its talk page is essentially blank. This lack of collaboration may give reason for its current areas of improvement.

The lead section of this page defines the topic and provides a an overview. However the first sentence could be improved to better represent this topic. Further, this section could be improved for conciseness by spending less time discussing specifics which are included later in the article. A significant portion of the overall page discusses the ACEs study conducted by Kaiser Permanente which has played a major role in defining this topic and its significance. However, the lead section fails to mention this key topic of discussion.

The content of the overall article is its strongest component, being both relevant and informative. It also does a good job at addressing equity gaps by discussing data relevant to historically underrepresented populations and racial groups. However, this article too frequently uses sources which do not meet wikipedia standards. An example of this is the Martin et. al. (2006) which presents "preliminary evidence." Another example is the article written by April Sorrow which is actually just a news article which covers a different publication.

This article does a good job at maintaining a neutral tone and it does not make any persuasive claims. It also has a good balance between relevant information; each section takes up an appropriate amount of space. While this articles does have one picture, it could do a better job ob including images to enhance understanding of this topic.

Overall, this article includes validated information conveyed through clear writing, however it needs work to improve the sources used.