User:Vinchenstein/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate
I chose the Armored Core VI Wikipedia article because the game is relatively new, so I expected the article on it to have some errors/missing info. It seemed to have a decent amount of info however, when I investigated it.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article is quite well made, and includes an introductory sentence that describes the overall game quite well. It is also quite concise, and only has a few sentences and not too many, but has all of the necessary info. The lead section also mentions that the game received generally favorable reviews, which to me seemed like bias at first, however upon further inspection I realized that it did receive generally favorable reviews, though having that at the end of the lead section could still be looked at as framing.

As for the content of the article, it seems quite basic in some areas. The gameplay portion of the article is still missing a variety of aspects from the game, such as movement and the different types of legs you can use, among many other things. There are also no pictures whatsoever in the article, besides the cover for the game. The data in the article is quite new, coming from just the end of August as all of the references on the bottom of the page show, and the data itself is still quite accurate overall despite being so basic. I'm sure that they could have used better references as well, as many of them are news-related instead of being from independent reviewers, such as Destructoid. The article is also well written, appearing professional in all of the paragraphs discussing the various topics surrounding the game. I also noticed zero grammatical errors, which was good as well.

I also checked the talk page for the article, which is barren and has no posts as of now. Considering that the article is new, hopefully more will pop up in the future. Overall, I'd say the status of the article is that it is still new and needs some more content. All of the data in the article is accurate, despite the fact that there is very little. The plot synopsis is also very well made and detailed.