User talk:Mcampbell14/ADHD

PEER REVIEW #1 The information you have to contribute to your article is sufficient. however, I would recommend finding a way to fit your information in the article to where it can flow properly. Also I found an article that you could use to further your findings. Roopeterson (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

PEER RESPONSE #1
 * Thank you for your review! I feel my content flows properly already. I believe you only feel that away because you haven't read at all together yet. Here, I'll show you an example. My work is in bold.

ADHD is divided into three subtypes: predominantly inattentive (ADHD-PI or ADHD-I), predominantly hyperactive-impulsive (ADHD-PH or ADHD-HI), and combined type (ADHD-C).[2][53] '''A study on executive functioning in different subtypes of ADHD patients showed significant difference in characteristics. The ADHD-Inattentive groups expressed more difficulties in focusing all their attention on tasks, while the ADHD-Combined groups showed significant struggles in their ability to plan things such as their day, future events, etc. ''' A person with ADHD inattentive type has most or all of following symptoms, excluding situations where these symptoms are better explained by another psychiatric or medical condition:[2][54] Mcampbell14 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW #2 Peer review- This is Chelsea and I like the way that the things that were edited inside the article went really well with what was already in the article. The information that was edited in the article gave me a much more in detailed understanding of what ADHD is.There could be a picture of what ADHD looks like. The editing in this article gives a great example of how to edit the articles.(Cjackson1215 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC))

PEER REPONSE #2 Thank you for taking the time to review my material! I'm glad it gave you a better understanding about what ADHD is because I've known about ADHD since before I wanted to (around 2nd grade). Choosing to place a picture of what ADHD looks like is a great idea, but not one I'm interested in doing. I prefer to stick to the information found in my sources. Once again, thank you! Mcampbell14 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW #3 The article is very well developed so I could see how it is difficult to add more meaningful content, but the additions made are good improvements to the article so far. Good job on directly referring relevant study results to main topics in the article. Bilalabualrub (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

PEER RESPONSE #3 Thank you for your response! I agree it is difficult to add more meaningful content, therefore I've decided to just elaborate on a few interesting subtopics. Mcampbell14 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW #4 First, the information that you have added to the article is clearly structured and easy to understand. Your additions provide balanced, but neutral arguments to the article. There aren't many suggestions that I could add other than to keep up the good work and continue to use reliable sources for your information. There were a few things about your article that could be applicable to my article such as ensuring that my added information is broken down into sections for viewers to easily read. Your information was very easy to find. (Dnbell (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC))

PEER RESPONSE #4 Thank you for reviewing my content!! Organization is a strong suit of mine, so thank you for highlighting on it! Mcampbell14 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW #5 I recommend providing a general description of ADHD- what is the disorder, what are the general symptoms? I also recommend finding a way to integrate the research articles you found into the general description. You did a good job at including relevant and informative articles relating to your topic, and at providing sources. (23:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsol98 (talk • contribs)

PEER RESPONSE #5 Thank you for taking the time to review my content! I don't think that adding the general symptoms is a good idea; for the simple fact that other wiki authors have already done so. Considering that the ADHD article has been listed under the good article criteria, adding such vague and general information would be redundant. Therefore, refer yourself to the introductory paragraph of ADHD for a general description. Also, refer yourself to the section titled SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS to find the general symptoms. Thank you once again! Mcampbell14 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW #6 I am finding that copying/pasting the actual parts of the article that I'm working on into my sandbox helps me to understand how my additions will mesh with the existing content. I appreciate your additions but it's difficult for me to tell exactly where in the article the information you've put here is going to fit. I commend you for picking such a well-developed article. I'm sure it's difficult to find anything to change about it! (looking at the talk page for the article itself can be very helpful because sometimes people identify issues and do not actually resolve them--it might give you some inspiration!)Rdewitt92 (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

PEER RESPONSE #6 Copying and pasting the live article information has been my number one big help in improving the article. It allows me to work piece by piece to ensure my content is relevant to the topic. If you are having trouble telling where the information will fit, refer to my first peer response #1 at the top of the page! Thanks for the inspiration. Mcampbell14 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)