User:SalamanderGuy/Evaluate an Article

Evaluation of Diablo II

 * Diablo II: Diablo II
 * I have some experience with the Diablo series, and enjoy it as a game. I though it would be good to evaluate an article about a topic I had some familiarity.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead is decent, but it does have a couple errors. The introductory sentence does a good job of describing the article. However, there does not appear to be a sentence that describes the major sections of the article. The lead does another good job in not including any information that can't be found anywhere else in the text. The lead is very concise, and is easy to read and get a general sense of what the article is about.

Content evaluation
The content of the article is of very good quality. All of the content is relevant to the topic, whether it is discussing the benefits and detriments of the different classes or talking about what awards can be won. The information is all up-to-date, as no new news has been released on the topic of Diablo II. There isn't any information that is missing from the article, nor is there any content that doesn't belong. Also, the article does very well in making sure that the reader isn't distracted by anything unusual.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is appropriate for the article and the article is very well balanced. The article adopts a neutral stance, simply stating the facts about the game. The article does well in not being biased toward any position. No viewpoints are over-represented, nor are they under-represented. Instead, all of the views given are balanced with the other views. The article does a good job of not trying to persuade the reader towards one position or away from another one.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources and references are decent, but they do have a few problems. Not all of the facts are backed up with reliable sources. However, those that are all have reliable sources. Also, the editors do a good job about letting the reader know that not all facts are cited properly. The sources are thorough, as all of them are the available literature for the game. The sources aren't entirely current, but that is to be expected, as the article is not on a current topic. While the sources aren't current, they are indeed contemporary. Finally, all of the links that I checked work well and will take the reader to the source if they wish.

Organization evaluation
The organization of the article is very well done. It is very well written, being quite concise, with clear and easy to read information. The article also has good grammar, and does not have any spelling errors. The article is also well-organized, with many sections that both reflect the major points of the subject and deliver key information to the reader.

Images and media evaluation
The article does include images that help the understanding of the subject. The images are indeed well-captioned, and help the reader to understand what is depicted in each picture. All of the images in the article adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, as Grandpafootsoldier describes his reasons for why they would be considered fair use, and they are in line with the Fair-use/Non-free policies. While the images aren't exactly laid out in a visually appealing way, they are laid out in a way that makes sense.

Talk page evaluation
The conversations that can be found on the talk page are varied, ranging from discussing how people modified external sources to talking about games that are similar to Diablo II. It is rated as C-class, and is part of WikiProject Video Games. It is different from how we discussed this topic in class, as we talked about how the talk page can be used to ask questions, whereas this talk page is used for discussing improvements to the article itself.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is a decent article, as shown by its C-class status and the lack of a heading at the top saying "this article is a stub." The strength of the article is that it has a lot of easy to read information, is good at staying neutral, and has nearly all of its facts cited. A few ways that the article could be improved is for the article to have more pictures, cite the information that isn't cited and go a bit more in-depth with the characters/classes, if possible. I would assess this article as being well-developed, as it only has a few errors, and the ones it does have are fairly minor.