User:AlexLambright/sandbox-ArticleEvaluation

Article Evaluation
The Wikipedia article for Video Game Journalism needs to be updated and developed more. Firstly the lead section of the article is only two sentences long. It doesn't offer much information and needs to be developed further. There is a lack of photos and formatting that make the page unappealing to look at. The article is hard to read as there are grammatical errors and run on sentences. The writing is wordy and hard to understand and transitions within the sections are sloppy. Portions mentioned in other section have the ability to stand on their own. For example, Esports coverage is mentioned underneath New Media however this is an emerging field that has the ability to be a standalone section. The article's main focus on the United States' journalism and does not look at the practice as a whole. The sections within this article have a myriad of problems. The author of the Independent section is clearly different from the rest of the article. The Independent section in particular suffers from bias. The word choice creates a clear disdain for traditional publication and needs to be rewritten in a neutral tone. The bulk of the claims are unsupported and the only citation for this section is on IGN layoffs that does not correlate to anything else in it. Review site section has a place in this article however, the writing is unclear. Most of the sections suffer from lack of citations. The Rumor section is in need of more citation in order to be seen as creditable. Social Issue section has a solid source but it has only one source and the section itself is only a sentence long. It is an important topic but needs more sourcing to warrant a place in this article. The New Game Journalism section relies heavily on one source. It is a primary source from the creator this new theory of gaming journalism but this source is a personal blog. This section needs more independent sources to ensure that is section is not biased. The majority of the sources need to be stronger or updated all together as they are dead links. Overall this article needs better sources and to be rewritten in a clear and cohesive manner.