User:Lyzbeths/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Sexism and video games)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this topic because, the video game industry is not only a male dominated field any more and this article will help dive deeper into Sexism in video games. Women should be properly represented in video games and not just looked at as sexual property. My preliminary impression of this article as I felt it was missing some vital information on the causes along with how and why it needs to change.

Evaluate the article
(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.)

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, it talks about what Sexism is and gives a brief explanation of who it affects.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it does not briefly describe the major sections, just mentions them.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) Yes, it talks about video game culture in the lead but not in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead lacks details about what the article is about.

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? No, I don’t believe it sticks strictly to the article's topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No, It talks about the percentage of women playing video games in 2010.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, a lot of relevant content is missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it talks about women being underrepresented in the video game industry.

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? Yes, it's neutral from my first read through.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, they do not seem biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, the viewpoints of the men accused of being sexist.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes, women's viewpoints.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I didn't find anything in my first read through.

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? Yes, there are reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they reflect available literature.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they have sources from 2021.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources seem mixed.
 * 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, there are some articles that can be added.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the 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 article is easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None, that I found in the first read.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it’s broken into sections.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, the article does not have any images,
 * 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? It has information about things that have been removed and why.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Its a c-class article and yes it is a part of different WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I don’t think it's different.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? The overall status of the article is Mid-Importance.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article has plenty of examples of sexism in video games.
 * How can the article be improved? More content needs to be added, and up to date information.

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped.