User:MichaelRoaUMD/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: Twilight Struggle
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. It presents an interesting cross section between a political/historical topic and board games. As well, I am familiar with both the subject the game addresses, the game itself and board games in general.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it gives a clear and concise description of the game, its subject matter and a brief overview of the games intent/creation.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not explicitly, but any information introduced in the Lead is addressed in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not as far as I can observe.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It straddles the line of some unnecessary information, but overall builds a good introduction of the game.

Lead evaluation
Overall a well written lead, it introduces the game and touches on many of the things that separates it from other games while emphasizing that it is these traits that

that have seen the game become very well regarded. If there is any complaint I have is that I would explicitly state the game is a-historical (though this would be highly

up for debate)

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. I found nothing that strayed too far from the content.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, for the most part. The awards section and an estimation of sales may need to be updated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? A short blurb on the PC and Android virtual releases ought to be added. As well, there is a expansion for the game that address the Red Sea conflict
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, which leaves some room for improvement as in my previous answer there is an upcoming expansion that will examine the conflict near the Horn of Africa/Arabian Peninsula.

Content evaluation
Overall accurate information that is in need of some updating.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Overall yes, but in a almost paradoxical sense. As the game address the Cold War it makes as it assumes "all of the internal logic of the Cold War as true—even those parts of it that are demonstrably false."  To the articles credit it is neutral when otherwise dealing with the topics.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not as far as I can tell.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
As the game address complicated material, the article is overall well balanced and maintains a tone of professionalism when describing the product.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? The latest are 2019, but all links seem to work.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, even some foreign analysis's of the game are included.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? As far as the 7 I clicked yes.

Sources and references evaluation
The article is well sourced, and references come from a variety of places.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Article is well organized, not much else needs to be said.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Few images actually contain game material, but some address the topics the game utilizes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not super ideal, but overall its not bad.

Images and media evaluation
More pictures of the game itself could be used. Of the 4 used, only 2 directly contain the game, and one of those is the game box.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Many of the talk is in regards to the previous edits that the game is "innovative", past that there's an entire review of the article at large.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as a "Start-Class" and is part of the Boardgames Wikigroup
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? No.

Talk page evaluation
Seems like a healthy conversation, that has helped address some of the older revisions weaker indulgencies.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It was recently nominated for a "Good article" award, but failed to receive so, but is otherwise praised for its clarity.
 * What are the article's strengths? As a board game that has made a fairly large splash in among communities the article does a fantastic job of summarizing its unique points.
 * How can the article be improved? Other users suggest that more verified sources, and more sources overall could help the article greatly.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say the article borders on well-developed.

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: Talk:Twilight Struggle/GA1 I asked about how to resolve the article reviewers issue with a topic.