User:Coffeyrh/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Microtransaction

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it revolves around my topic. My preliminary impression of this article was that it was very good and detailed.

Evaluate the article
{| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article
 * Evaluate an article

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? Yes.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed but sectioned off well enough that it's easy to read and digest sections.

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? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes Feb 11th, 2022 last updated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not necessarily. I'd argue not including "whales" the small percentage of players who buy a lot of microtransactions should've been included. The editor referenced Fortnite skins and kids which is chump change for some "whales"
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, but this article does include laws from other countries and legislation regarding microtransactions.

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? For the most part the article is neutral. On the other hand the article sways more against microtransactions especially when discussing children purchasing microtransactions or psychology of microtransactions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there is not. Statistics and data was used to direct information.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Underrepresented would be the whales and casuals. Overrepresented would be children but I'd suggest that is because backlash legislation and all the baggage to go with it so it made sense.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? The business perspective is included to show data or profits. Overall the article had decent information about the business side of microtransactions such as earnings and battle pass systems explained.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Overall I'd state that the information is presented clearly and it's up to the consumer to engage. The information includes the profits or psychology behind microtransactions. Throughout the article there were highlights of the negatives and lawsuits as well. I'd state it sways a little against microtransactions overall.

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? No, for the majority I'd state yes. I stated majority as I was unfamiliar with a few sites and there were personal accounts. There were over 60 sources used. I stated with majority because these companies are public aside from valve and have to publish their data and earnings. The sources also included videos how to buy battle pass and hyperlinks to purchase various microtransactions from games such as sims or google play. Lastly the lawsuits and legislation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? A few but literature on this topic is mostly articles.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes diverse spectrum of authors websites and even novels and virtual store-fronts.
 * 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.) Yes I'd state that there are but gaming is the largest medium in the world and has excellent coverage from large news outlets and independent YouTubers/journalist. Large outlets such as IGN, PcGamer, Gamespot, even Bloomberg receive news within the industry. My issue with peer-reviewed articles in terms of microtransactions would be on topics that aren't made public. These topics would be the psychology and gambling effects, etc of microtransactions. I would choose the peer-reviewed articles when discussing the effects from microtransactions. For public information that I'm not already aware of I'll know who has that information or I could check the game.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links I tried were successful.

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? Yes the tabs made it easier to digest. The article was clear and overall easy to read just a lot of information of a topic at once if someone was unfamiliar.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Overall nothing stuck out to me. Someone with a higher education in English might beg to differ but It presented well.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, very well.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, but there are many hyperlinks.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images.

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? Psychology, Gambling, Lawsuits, Profits, these words are associated with microtransactions within the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-class 3x WikiProjects being videogames, business, retailing
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? There were no embedded images to portray the bigger image or even the UI while discussing ideas that might be foreign to someone unaware of videogames.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Overall the article is organized and complete.
 * What are the article's strengths? The details or history of microtransactions within video games
 * How can the article be improved? Including an Image of a battle pass screen or a madden virtual card pack as a Gif opening a loot box would explain so many words.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Overall I would state this article was well-developed with potential to be fully-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
 * }