User:Medstud15/Evaluate an Article

 User:Medstud15/Evaluate an Article 

Which article are you evaluating?
Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is a topic of relevance to me. It matters because it is an increasingly prevalent condition, and yet, there is still a lot of conflicting/unclear information on it found online. My preliminary impression of this article is that a lot of the cited sources are outdated (not published within the past 5 years), the grammar can be improved (there are some confusing sentences), and overall more information can be included on this topic.

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.)

Overall, the lead section is well written and provides a good, brief overview of the topic, but it can be improved in providing better descriptions/introductions to the article's major sections.

The content of the article needs improvement, starting with using updated sources. A majority of the cited sources were not published within the past 5 years, and there are references within the article to the DSM-IV, when the most current version now is the DSM-5-TR. Additionally, the content of the article can be enhanced to not only include more recent information but also newer information that has been researched on this topic. Furthermore, the content can be enhanced to address this topic within the context of historically underrepresented populations.

Overall, the tone and balance of this article are good. It reads in a neutral tone without any evidence of bias toward any particular viewpoint.

As previously mentioned, a majority of the sources and references are outdated, and therefore, newer references should be found and used to better represent the current knowledge on this topic and improve this article.

At first glance, this article is well organized, but the quality of the writing needs improvement. There are portions where the writing structure is unclear and difficult to understand, and there are a handful of grammatical errors.

There do not appear to be any ongoing conversations on the Talk page of this article, although it is of interest to many WikiProjects.

My overall impression of the article is that it can be improved with more current sources. One of its strengths is that the current information provided, albeit outdated, is factual and generally properly cited. I think that as it stands, given the more recent publications on this topic, this article is underdeveloped, and some of its sections can be enhanced.