Too many times, quotes are attributed with the word "added" or "adding."
I think this springs from reporters resentful about having to use "said" all the time as attribution. Thus, they pepper copy with "added"s.
An example:
"Justin Timberlake gracing the cover of Rolling Stone is outrageous," Wiggins said, adding that "his album is pretty good, though."
In this case, you don't even need the extra attribution. Folks believe, in a context like this, that it designates a comment as an aside. My belief: If we have to signpost a comment as an aside, it's not an especially effective one.
In this case:
"Justin Timberlake gracing the cover of Rolling Stone is outrageous," Wiggins said. "His album is pretty good, though."
The quote does the work. It changes the subject for you. The "adding" adds little.
One more:
"I enjoyed Christmas with my family," he said. "It was the best holiday ever."
He added, "My goldfish died and the house burned down."
"Added" drops by here to serve as a transition. The writer wants to jam two disparate quotes together. But the word works even less well here. "Added" has a jaunty air, which our speaker did not presumably share when talking about his holiday difficulties.
One option for a change: Cut the second quote and paraphrase.
"I enjoyed Christmas with my family," he said. "It was the best holiday ever."
But the day also challenged Perkins. His goldfish died, he said. To make matters worse, the house burned down.
My final objection to "added," is that it suggests the comment being added is the last one. The speaker has made his or her point and has just one more thing to toss into the mix. Few stories take this suggestion to heart. "Add" becomes a variant of "said."
Avoid this whenever possible.
I planned to end this gripe with an example of when "added" could be used appropriately. I couldn't think of one.