User:Cam JC Chen/Evaluate an Article

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: Flappy Bird
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

The reason I chose to evaluate this article is that Flappy Bird is a successful and phenomenal game. Its popularity has sparked a lot of interest and discussion about viral online marketing. The Flappy Bird wiki page is listed as a C-class article and there is a lot of discussion on the talk page as well. I think it's a good article to evaluate.

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
Lead of this article concisely and clearly describes the background of development of Flappy Bird. It shows when and who created the game and briefly introduces the mechanics of the game.

Lead briefly mentions a number of controversies about Flappy Bird and its successes. It also mentions the incident when it was taken off the market.

Lead does not include information that is not in the article.

I think that Lead does a good job of briefly describing Flappy Bird, but the section on its subsequent development is a bit too brief and does not connect well with the article. I think this section should be expanded.

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 article details the gameplay and the background of the game's creation, and documents the different opinions expressed after its release and the game's legacy after its disappearance. The article also describes the various controversies surrounding Flappy Bird. Since Flappy Bird did not continue to generate discussion later on, the content is mostly focused on the years 2013-2014. Some users asked to add other people's comments about Flappy Bird's alleged plagiarism in the Talk page. There is nothing in the article that does not belong to this topic. Wikipedia's equity gaps are not covered in the article or in the topic.

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 article does not show a bias toward one position or the other, and both pro and con opinions surrounding Flappy Bird are presented to the audience. The tone of the article does not attempt to convince the reader to support either position. Therefore, I think the article is neutral.

Sources and References

 * 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
The facts and opinions mentioned in the article are based on reliable secondary sources, including mainstream gaming media, news media, and personal media on Twitter. Most of these sources are in English, but some are also in Vietnamese (because the author of Flappy Bird is from Vietnam). In 2018 a wiki user checked and updated the availability of reference links, and set up a wiki Archive Bot to archive screenshots.

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 structure of the article is clearly organized, starting with an introduction to the gameplay, followed by a description of the developer's background and the process of releasing the game. Then it details the impact of the game's release, and finally it describes the various discussions surrounding Flappy Bird. I am not a native English speaker and I did not feel any difficulty in reading it.

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 contains a few images to help the reader better understand the interface and gameplay of the game. The images are well captioned and comply with Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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 page contains some additional information about whether Flappy Bird is suspected of plagiarism, and there is a discussion about whether the game should be described in the past tense. This article was one of the Video games good articles, and now belongs to WikiProject Apps, WikiProject Videos games, and WikiProject Viernam, but they are all rated C-class and have no high priority.

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 overall structure of the article is clear and the presentation of pros and cons of the discussion about Flappy Bird is complete. However, I think the article lacks references to professional research articles on Flappy Bird and viral marketing. I think this could be added to the article in the future.

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 — ~


 * Link to feedback: