User:Brandon Osier/sandbox/Article Evaluation

User:Brandon Osier/Evaluate an Article From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Evaluate an article This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: (link) Loot box, Microtransaction#:~:text=From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,revenue source for the developers.

Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose these two articles because there are a lot of free to play video games across multiple devices that have these loot boxes and micro transactions. To me and a lot of other people, loot boxes have been seen as predatory and have even been considered gambling. For instance say you are playing battlefront 2 which was infamous when it came out for locking most of the progression behind loot boxes that you had to pay for. Yes you could use the in game currency but EA restricted the amount you could earn in particular game modes, effectively forcing you to purchase loot boxes with real money. Even when you sunk in the money for the loot boxes however you weren't guaranteed to unlock said character. It was random as to whether or not you would get that character or even an item you needed or wanted so you'd have to keep buying loot boxes. That isn't the only game that does it either. Another controversial and aggressive form of loot boxes was in NBA 2k20 which if i'm remembering right not only had loot boxes, also had literal gambling in it. Like, full on slot machines and the like for what I can see on the trailer in game currencies or more loot boxes. And before anybody says well it's probably aimed at adults, this is a basketball game with an E rating. This is a game that parents are more likely to buy for their children, so not only are adults being allowed to gamble in this game but so are children. And these are just two examples there are loads of examples in not only triple A game titles, but also in mobile phones, where there are so many examples of loot boxes and microtransactions its not funny. Now some games do it right. Team fortress 2 has loot boxes but the things you can get in the loot boxes you can also get from just playing the game, and it doesn't really give you an advantage. Loot boxes have become Extremely controversial however due them being Just short of gambling, that it poses an ethical question; Should Loot Boxes be considered gambling and should games Have content locked behind Loot Boxes or microtransactions, or should you be able to unlock them through playing the game fairly? I think that is an interesting topic to discuss that a lot of people have only begun to answer in the last year. As for the Microtransactions Themselves, while not gambling are still a messy situation. Lots of games say you can spend money to progress faster in the game, and some games once again lock the progression behind spending money. Assassins creed unity did this somewhat, where it was painfully difficult to unlock things in the game. When I first played it I just played it like normal without spending money. The game was extremely difficult since it took forever to unlock anything in the game and you didn't start unlocking anything through playing the missions that helped you until late game. But you could spend real money to make the game easier. There was one other way to do it and that was to play one of the hardest co-op missions in the game a whole bunch of times to grind the money. Granted you got a lot, but you still had to play it a lot to unlock anything substantial. If you chose to do this early in the game then good luck. Another example that comes to mind almost immediately is WWE Champions which had a thousand different currencies and also featured loot boxes as well. The other reason I picked two is because The two tie together so well That I usually end up considering loot boxes as a microtransaction, which isn't entirely off key.

Lead Guiding questions

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?

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

'''Lead evaluation The Lead Introduces the topics on both articles very well. It briefly describes the articles main points and only uses information found within the article. Content'''

Guiding questions

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?

'''Content evaluation The articles content is relevant to the topic, and Is all up to date. While neither articles really talk about underrepresented populations or topics, they discuss something that honestly should be called into question by more people, which is the ethics of disguising and embedding gambling in games without informing the consumer and the psychology and the ethics behind selling microtransactions especially to children'''

Tone and Balance Guiding questions

Is the article neutral?

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

'''Tone and balance evaluation The articles do their best to remain neutral and tries to remain unbiased though the talk pages of loot boxes makes references to the overwatch section being hardly neutral. The articles do feel like they lean more toward one side over the other though there is very little support for the topics. Guiding questions'''

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?

Check a few links. Do they work?

'''Sources and references evaluation Many of the sources work but some come form news articles covering the events. However when reading them through, the articles do their best to remain as unbiased as possible and show case the different points of view. The sources are current given the context. Some sources are from studies that focus on the psychology and ethics of microtransactions and loot boxes Organization''' Guiding questions

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?

'''Organization evaluation The articles are well written and is mostly error free. I say mostly because I have seen the words microtransaction and loot box written out differently over the years. The articles are also well organized; they break down their topics very well and they even discuss how they relate to one another. Images and Media''' Guiding questions

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?

'''Images and media evaluation The article regarding loot boxes has a few images but could use a few images regarding some of their examples. The microtransaction article could use some pictures and maybe even some examples of microtransactions in games.''' Checking the talk page Guiding questions

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?

'''Talk page evaluation The talk pages are interesting. The talk page for loot boxes is pretty good with a few recent conversations, Microtransactions is a bit less up to date. The loot boxes article is a part of the gambling wikiprojects, while microtransactions are a part of the video games.'''

Overall impressions Guiding questions

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?

'''Overall evaluation The Loot boxes article may end up being harder to add to than I thought. It is well written and Somewhat complete rating a B class project on the quality scale. There might be something I can add To it but it wouldn't be too significant. The article about Microtransactions on the other hand is rated as a start. It is somewhat well written and is a little more neutral but is a little lacking in examples. I think I can add on quite a bit that might help enhance the article and help people understand them and maybe even expand the history of microtransactions. '''

Optional activity Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — Brandon Osier (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Link to feedback:

Yes the articles Introduce the topics and give a brief and clear synopsis of the topic discuss.

Categories:

Wikipedia Student Program

Navigation menu