User:Oliver Lizzhelm/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Japanese mahjong scoring rules

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I enjoy playing Japanese mahjong. This is important to me because I would like to see mahjong become more popular; I believe that providing accurate information could make more people interested in the game and make it easier for people to learn mahjong. My impression of this article was that it is fine but could use a little bit of help; there are some alternative rules that aren't mentioned and some things sound unclear to me.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The introductory sentence seems fine, but could be more focused. The lead section does not mention limit hands and only briefly mentions alternative rules. The lead section mentions several things that are not talked about anywhere else in the article; the lead section says that the rules were made more uniform under the Taisho and Showa period; mentions point sticks values and touches on busting, or going below 0 points. The lead section provides is somewhat concise, but could be trimmed a little bit.

Content:

The article's content is mostly on-topic and relevant; the Chombo section and 110 fu example may not be necessary. The content is mostly up-to-date; the article says that "most rules" allow Kazoe-yakuman, but that may not be true today; I'll have to look into it. There are several alternative rules that the article does not mention. The mention of the periods when the rules were standardized may not belong. The article does not mention how other variants of mahjong have influenced Japanese mahjong.

Tone and Balance:

The article is in a neutral tone. There are examples of the words such as "most" or "usually" that may not be needed. There are not any glaring examples of over or under representation. It may be prudent to research and possibly indicate how common the "Warme" rule is. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader of anything.

Sources and References:

There are a large number of sentences that lack citations and nearly all of them do not have a "citation needed" box. There are very few sources; three of the sources are other Wikipedia articles. The two sources that are not Wikipedia articles are very dated and contain out-of-date information. The sources are either based of the European Mahjong Association's (EMA) rules or are other Wikipedia articles; there are no credible sources that originate outside of Europe. There are better sources available; an up-to-date EMA document could be used if nothing else. All the links work.

Organization and writing quality:

The article is mostly well-written and doesn't have any glaring grammatical errors. The "Optional Scoring Rules" section only mentions one rule and may need to be expanded to be worthy of its own section.

Images and Media:

The article includes a few images to illustrate an example hand. The images that are used are not captioned. The images used adhere to Wikipedia's copyright policies. The images that are used are decently appealing.

Talk page and discussion:

There are a few posts on the talk page; they are all from over a decade ago and appear to be resolved or unclear. This article is rated as a Start-class article.

Overall impressions:

The article could use a lot of citations. The article provides good information that is mostly accurate, but lacks citations to prove the validity of its information. This article could be improved by adding sources, updating sources, and adding more information. I would say this article would be mostly well-developed if it had accurate sources for all of its information.