User talk:Pearsonn2/Evaluate an Article

Response
This is an incredibly thorough and well-supported evaluation, Naomi. Excellent work! I especially appreciate your close reading of the outdated diagnostic material and the back-end debates about how best to represent diagnostic issues on the Talk page. I was also surprised to learn that this is a *former* featured article: the step down in article class suggests that there were significant problems with this article (some of which you raise) that led to it's demotion. What's more, I think you're spot-on in your observation about the problematic language issue (re: the inconsistent person-first language, which is now a standard in health & medicine) as well as the lack of attention to positive attributes of persons with autism. Those are KEY components and their omission suggests some of the bias that writers who contribute to this article may have without even knowing about their own implicit biases. A clear case of ableism, for sure!

Very well done - keep up the good work! Pthomas4 (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)