User:Danaorow/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: Super Paper Mario
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article because it is a game that I used to play and was curious as to why it sou

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it intro describes it as a side-scrolling video game that was published by Nintendo on the Wii console particularly.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, There is a contents box right under the first few paragraphs.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all information mentioned in the lead is presented and elaborated in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think that some sections of the lead is concise, however, the last paragraph seems to be a bit on the detailed side of things.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead of this article is really strong. It breaks down the game in the overall Super Mario franchise and covers the general reception of the game as a product towards the consumers

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content presented in the article is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, as this game is only a few years old, the content and descriptions are relatively up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Something that could possibly be added as content missing is how this game's relation to other games that introduce 2D artifacts in a 3D world.
 * Additionally, it should be mentioned that there is the same version of this game that was available to play on Nintendo's GameCube. Which is not mentioned on this article.

Content evaluation
The Content of this article is all relevant and up to date in respect to the release and news of the game. I think that there are some aspects of the game that could be included and mentioned in the main body of content. Especially since they primarily reference the game on the Wii as opposed to the GameCube.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral as it mainly covers content on the game play, plot and development of the game.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, while the content says that reviews for this game are generally positive, they also mention that there are complaints to this game. They recognize two sides and leave a summary that is as neutral as possible.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Some viewpoints that could be underrepresented are the technical issues as well as any other hidden bugs that players may or might not experience while playing this game.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. As an overview of the article, the author mainly summarizes facts and progression of the game to the reader.

Tone and balance evaluation
The Tone and balance of this article is primarily neutral however there are minimal issues with the viewpoints and standpoints of this article. Overall I'd say that the author(s) did great on maintaining a very neutral perspective. In the talk page, there are multiple instances of change suggestions and information that has either improved the article or has been removed from the article

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, there are multiple references that are included in this article that are comprised of critic reviews and news articles revolved around the game.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There is no mention on available and external literature on this game.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Relative to the game and it being published, yes, the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * While most links work as mentioned, about a third send to a blank canvas reading: "This page isn't working; ____.com redirected you too many times."

Sources and references evaluation
As this article has 34 links listed in the References portion, there are some significant gaps that could be filled or re-visited. Some issues pertain to links that no longer work as well as published literature on walk-through tutorials and secret 'Easter eggs' on the game that exist online as well as the leaf booklet.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. The article is overall well-written and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are some minor grammatical errors within the plot section, but this is highly due to the fact that some parts of the game is summarized with mentions of in-game content.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. The game play, plot, development, etc.

Organization evaluation
The overall organization of this article is well done up to Wikipedia standards. The only issues that I perceive are a simple proof-reading of the content.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, there is surprisingly a lack of images to accompany the facts and issues presented in the game. It would make the article more understandable with prime images that show examples of particular issues.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The one of the game cover itself is.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes since there is only one.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There is a lack of images other than the first one.

Images and media evaluation
As an overall well done page, another weakness of this article are the Images and Media to reference game play, content and development throughout the article. I feel that illustrations and images help readers/viewers understand the main body of content as they fill in the example gaps.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are converstaions regarding the character list, spoilers, plot additions, the references, etc.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated as a C-Class on the quality scale and Mid on the importance scale. It is also supported by the Nintendo task force as it is content respective to them.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia discusses this topic differently than the way we've talked in class by diving into specifics on what needs to be adjusted.

Talk page evaluation
There is a somewhat strong community of contributors to this article. I feel that it makes this article more or less balanced as there are multiple critics on what information should be added on the article as well as how they should be presented. This talk page also is very insightful to the major and minor changes made to the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status is under the scope of the WikiProject Video games. A collaborative effort to improve video games on Wiki.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strength is the Lead and Development/Progression of the game itself.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Th article could be improved by including more images as a visual to what is being referenced to in the major parts of the article.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is somewhat underdeveloped as it could use a bit more.

Overall evaluation
Overall, I feel that this article is strong and up to Wikipedia standards as a fulfilling and engaging article that summarizes and introduces content relevant to the topic, that is Super Paper Mario.

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: