User:Annabelja

Quality Evaluation of Pokémon Go Article
The wikipedia article Pokémon Go, is well updated and well referenced, but falls victim to close paraphrasing and some organizational issues. While users have included a whopping 258 references on this article, many are lazy in rewording the phrases they take from online articles. While this article has reliable information, it is not of the highest quality In the article, most facts are accompanied by a reference. Some points even have two references to back up one point. This shows that those claims are backed up by not just one, but multiple sources. All the links to references work, and most take the reader to a reliable news source. Because of this, the reader can trust that the information within the article is trustworthy. For instance, this article links to sources such as Forbes, and USA Today that are well renowned.

The article is also very well updated. Events that happened a month ago, such as the restriction of the game on Pentagon property are included in the article. Viewing the history, one can see that the page was edited multiple times today and yesterday, and the article includes new features added to the game in the latest update on September 10, such as the “Buddy Pokémon” feature, and further prevention of players who to cheat in the game with jailbroken devices. One can rely on this article to learn about extremely recent happenings in the game.

Many sentences in the article are very closely paraphrased from the article they reference, such that the contributors border on plagiarism. For example, a line in the article states “The game has been referred to as a ‘social media phenomenon’ which has brought people together from all walks of life.” This line references an article that uses the exact phrase “people from all walks of life.” While they adapted the phrase to fit in the article, they did not use their own words to express the point. This paraphrasing should not be included in a quality Wikipedia article.

The article is also organized poorly, including some repetition of topics in different sections of the article. One instance of this is the inclusion of the “three-step glitch” in both the Commercial Response and Critical Response categories of this article. Users in the talk section of this page can be seen discussing ideas of how to reorganize the article, such as making a whole separate article devoted to the reception of the game, but the user had not yet agreed upon a method of better organization.

The Pokémon Go article is useful for a person trying to find accurate information about the topic, because of the functionality and reliability of the links. The fault in this article is that it is somewhat poorly organized, and the facts presented too closely parallel the articles they are paraphrasing from, making the article of lower quality. Annabelja (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Annabel Allen