User:KB028/Evaluate an Article

Women and video games
(Provide a link to the article here.)

== I chose this article because I feel like when people discuss "video games" and "gamers" they generally think of men. I was intrigued by the topic of all women gamers and how they navigate a generally male-dominant hobby. It matters because representation matters. If young girls see women playing video games, it gives them confidence and a hope that they can do it too! My preliminary impression was that it was going to be a surface level article regarding top women gamers in the industry and how they "broke into" the gaming space. After reading the article, I discovered that the gender balance in the gaming world it near equivalent (which I did not know prior to this article). It had data information, game preferences, and discussions of the treatment of women in the industry all of which was eye-opening. ==

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)


 * Lead Section: The lead sentence gives a general statement that essentially is regarding the reason most people are probably clicking on this particular Wiki article. The second sentence is probably the one that should have lead the article as it goes straight into what is included/a focus of the article. The introductory paragraph does a great job at clearly describing what the article is going to consist of. It sums up nearly all the topics that the Wikipedia article discusses further (in its own paragraphs) within the article in a concise way. It does not include any information that was not present in the article and the lead section is concise for readers to get a quick understanding of what the article will entail.
 * Content: Each section that is included in the article is relevant to the topic. In fact, it answered everything (and more) that I wanted it to when thinking of the topic before I even read the article which was impressive. The content is relatively up to date as most of the research referenced in the article is from the early/mid 2010s. The most recent data I recall seeing the article reference is from 2017 and it was only briefly referenced. Most of the numerical/statistical data that is in the article is from 2006-2013 roughly. I wish they had included more recent data as the trends they refer to in the article show more female representation in the gaming world and I'd be interested in seeing how the trends have changed (or not). The content that is included all belongs in the article, in my opinion, is what what most readers will enjoy seeing as a part of the article. The article specifically addresses how women are often seen as the underrepresented population in the gaming world (despite recent trends) and this article does a great job at using examples of women being looked down upon by male competitors (showing their discrimination in the industry). It gives historical references to negative comments/trends towards female gamers and gives a timeline of how women were included and unincluded from different aspects within the industry. It discusses gender disparity and its effects as well as the treatment of women in the industry which is very helpful in understanding the importance of the article and how it is not talked about enough.
 * Tone and Balance: The article is neutral. It does not lean one way or another, it simply lays out the facts/events that have happened relating to the topic. There are no claims leaning towards one particular position, the contributors don't say their opinion but they lay out research findings allowing the reader to decide for themselves. I wish the article would have included more about female gamers (their names, faces, and game preferences) to give women readers some more inspiration to join in the gaming world. There were some references to actual women gamers, but it still feels as if there are not enough women gamers actually represented in the article. The article explains well the amount of discrimination/sexism towards women in the gaming industry and accurately describes their viewpoints. From my perspective, the article does not attempt to persuade readers in any position. It doesn't say "women are discriminated against in this industry and you need to believe that" but rather the article (as I previously mentioned) lays out the facts/references/data in a way that allows the readers to decide their stance (if any).
 * Sources and References: The data and facts are backed up by reliable sources. There are lots of reputable research programs/studies referenced and those each have reliable researchers involved in the study. The articles that I chose to click on were ones from common sources like The Wall Street Journal and big associations here (and other countries) all compiling valid information. Each source I looked at had been mostly focused on the direct topic at hand, allowing for the source to be valid (as in, the topic is discussed thoroughly and not just reference in one sentence in the source). The sources are generally current. There are some from the early/mid 2010s and then some more recently added sources from the last 3 years (or at least retrieved in the last few years from there). They have quite the variety of authors in their sources. Some are from various men and women, others are from associations of many people, and some are from massive printing companies. I am not sure if they are from historically marginalized individuals, but a lot are from women who are included in the topic that the article surrounds. Honestly, I think this article did a great job at gathering information from a wide variety of sources, with different authors, from different perspectives/data regarding this topic allowing for the readers to grasp as much as they can about the topic from just one Wikipedia article. The links I checked did work and took me to full, detailed articles generally regarding the same topic as this article.
 * Organization and Writing Quality: The article is well written. I was impressed by the professionalism portrayed in this article. It was understandable, concise, and detailed enough to feel more informed on the topic. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors within the article but I believe I found a numerical error in the "Genre Preferences" section of the article. They discuss a 30% group and within that group, 20% prefer Call of Duty and 15% prefer GTA which ends up being 35% instead of the stated 30%. The article is well-organized. It has sections that are relevant to the topic and a great amount of subsections that allow for readers to see the topics within sections that break down information making it easier to read.
 * Images and Media: The article only includes a few images but those images are relevant to the topic. Two of them show women actually playing/who are a part of the gaming world as well as one of a gaming console that was directed towards women (both relevant to the topics they were placed next to). They are well captioned allowing readers to understand what the images are of and how they apply to the article. One of the images references a source listed by using a footnote but the other two images do not, but they rather describe where the image was taken (context of the image). They are laid out in a way that makes sense as they are next to paragraphs that loosely relate to the image.
 * Talk Page Discussion: The article was nominated for deletion in 2010 and nominated for merge but both resulted in allowing the article to stay as it is. It's rated as B-Class, mid importance. It is a part of many WikiProjects (10 to be exact), but there were no current conversations regarding how the topic should be represented. This Wikipedia page discusses the topic in a neutral, easily readable way that anybody reading it can easily comprehend.
 * Overall Impressions: It think this article is really well done. It went beyond my expectations in terms of the various discussions it discussed (and the depth of those topics). Some strengths were how much it covered and the general diversity of topics it analyzed. I enjoyed that it used quotes, people (gamers), and numerical data to further enhance the articles/sections meaning. The sheer amount of sources it had and laid out the data in a way that was understandable is a strength. Furthermore, I liked how many subsections it had. The sections are nicely laid out, but the subsections really helped me (as a reader) think/focus on one particular topic at a time underneath a section header. The article can be improved by using more recent research. I am unaware if new research is being widely done (I assume it is, but can't be sure) because the meaning of the statistics/data would be much more useful to readers if it was from the last 5 years or so rather than 10+ years ago. Adding new data/trends to the article would also be beneficial as readers can see how the trend of female gamers has changed (and continues to change) throughout the years. I would assess the article as well-completed. It is developed in a way that readers could gather lots of quality information and insight on this topic from just this one article but again, it could be improved upon if more current data was being used. It covers a lot of useful topics and discusses those thoroughly, but could be more complete using new and changing data.

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)