User:Outlanderrr/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Sexism and video games

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is a topic I am interested in. I also have previous experience in researching sexism in video games, primarily in the Grand Theft Auto video game franchise. My initial impression of the article was that it discussed the awful sexism women face when trying to enter the video gaming sphere/culture but did not delve into inherent sexism within some video games' concepts.

Evaluate the article
Firstly, the lead of the article was a bit lacking. The definition of sexism in video games was helpful. Nevertheless, it did not provide a sufficient introduction to the topics being discussed in the major sections. The lead also included a cited statistic that is not later explored in the article. Overall, the lead gave a very brief overview that just simply did not summarize the contents of the rest of the page all that well. Secondly, the content seems to have a solid foundation. The sources seem to be relatively up to date, with almost all of them being published within the last 8-10 years. As mentioned before, I feel like the article is missing key information about how sexism is often apparent within video games themselves, and not just in gaming culture. There is some brief mention of this, however I feel like it should be made a priority. The "Countermeasures" section also seems to be a bit brief. More discussion is required here as there have been advancements in aiding this problem that have not yet been discussed in the article. Next, as mentioned by the Wikipedia advisory, the article does tend to mostly present a Western point of view and is therefore written from a Western lens. However, it does seem to be relatively neutral in just presenting the facts of the topic with adequate examples. The article presents viewpoints of others in a way that demonstrates one side of the possible argument in comparison to another. In that sense, it seems to be balanced. As for the sources, they do seem up to date. However, I think some updating may be necessary with some more recent sources. Also, it seems there is a decent mix between journalistic articles and scholarly articles which is a positive sign. The authors of these sources do seem to be from a diverse spectrum. Some sources seem to be from Europe (specifically Germany and France), while there are others from various parts of Asia. The article does a good job in including statistics and information that is cited and backed up by the sources. The links I clicked seem to still be active as well. Mainly, I would like to see more scholarly articles, but some are present in the article. Additionally, the writing style of the piece could use some work. Compared to other Wikipedia articles I have read, this one seems to read more like an essay than a traditional Wiki page. The writing is professional, but it could definitely benefit from some editing to help with brevity. The article could also benefit from being broken down into further sections with headers to make for an easier/ more digestible read. Furthermore, the article does not include any images or media. While this is not necessarily essential to the topic at hand, some images may be useful for context purposes. The talk page of this article made a lot of points that I would have to agree with. The talk page also brought up the point that the article sheds light on a Western perspective and more diversity needs to be included through information and sources. Essentially, the article's contents need to be more globalized, which I do agree with. The talk page also makes some organizational suggestions which are valid. The overall status of the article is C-class. The article is strong in the sense that all the information presented appears to be properly cited and backed up. However, content is missing and there is the issue of the limited perspective. With a more globalized lens and the addition of more diverse sources, particularly scholarly sources, I think the article would be stronger. In my opinion, this article is under developed. There is adequate structure that is laid out, however there needs to be more content added in certain areas and more succinct summarization in others. Adding multiple more sections would also help with organizing the content.