User:Iskang15/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Granblue Fantasy Versus

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

The reason I chose this particular article is because of the game's representation within the fighting game community and the circumstances in which it has faced due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This particular sub-culture is widely known to be a social activity due to the nature of fighting games and their design philosophies. Granblue Fantasy Versus was a recently released fighting game that ultimately received praise for its visuals and animation, and more importantly was widely played throughout the community. However, due to the pandemic, offline gatherings for the game coupled with unstable online functionality, really hindered the game in terms of its growth and representation within the fighting game community. The reason this matters is because of what this game represents in the current landscape of the fighting game industry. With the pandemic, online functionality of any fighting game is now considered to be the upmost important, due to the social aspects hindering on this particular feature. Granblue Fantasy Versus, in my opinion, would have been the most influential newly released fighting game of 2020 in terms of quality and presentation, however due their lack of polish involving online netplay, it has severely diminished its popularity within the community and quickly faded into obscurity. My initial reactions towards the article are quite content in terms of the material already placed within the article itself. However, there seems to be some missing components such as the story, key moments in development, and release information for the game. Overall, there are definitely some things that may need to be worked on and given more specific information.

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.)

Definitely a good start to the article, however there seems to be lacking of some sections in regards to information about this fighting game.

There are some contents missing that are considered to be common on other fighting game related articles, these include:
- Plot - This section would commonly indicate the sequences of events in which the video game takes place in. This section would probably involve more specific information in regards the story elements of the "story mode", particularly the characters involved, the settings in which it will take place in, and the main source of conflict within the narrative.
- Development - This section would explain the development process associated with the game. Factors that could be incorporated into the article could be initial information that has been released of the game, teasers and trailers showcasing mechanics and design features, to even specific information in regards to the techniques used in order to create elements within the video game. For example, the incorporation of cell-shaded models and environments.
- Release - This section would indicate the stages in which the video game has been released. This could include ports such as an arcade release, which to some extent is still quite common internationally, to video game consoles and even Windows (PC) ports. However, this section may be subjected to change in regards to further information, as the game is still receiving developmental support through downloadable contents.
The "Characters" section needs to add that every character in the game has a certain set of color schemes they can change to when choosing their characters (known as colors), some of which are purchasable downloadable content.
The "Reception" section, specifically the sources used for the "generally favorable reviews" claim, does not seem to include citations.
- These particularly include the IGN and Metacritic reviews.
- The reviews could also be expanded upon more in this section, specifically in regards to statements made about the video game.
It may be beneficial to add some images in regards to the game mechanics mentioned in the "Gameplay" section.
- Such as the user interface element involving simpler inputs for the "Skybound Arts", at the cost of having a short cooldown period.
The external links used seems to be all working at this current moment in time.
The article seems to have a neutral point of view and multiple perspectives, such as the "Reception" and "References" sections within the article, as the goal seems to be informing readers about the fighting game.
Content seems to be up-to-date, however this heavily depends on announcements for additional content surrounding the video game, such as new characters.
Based on the information already present within the article, the lead does provide a solid concise overview about the topic. Possibly, if more information about the topic is added, it may need some adjustments.