User talk:Castroalexis07/sandbox

Article Evaluation
The Article I chose to evaluate was "Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game," because the card game is an interest of mine. Article Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu-Gi-Oh!_Trading_Card_Game

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. There was nothing distracting. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? The information is up to date but there are a few key points that could be added to the "monster categories" section under "types of cards." What else could be improved? The article could use more links in both the "Gameplay" and "Types of Cards" section.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is neutral overall. There are no claims that appear biased towards any position. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All viewpoints are objective, that is they are based entirely on facts.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The links work and they support claims made in the article. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? All facts are coming from neutral sources. Sources which come from websites owned by the makers of the card game list gameplay mechanics which are found in online rulebook resources and contain purely unbiased content.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Many conversations deal with what the controversy section should and should not include. Controversies including religious aspects were seen as being unnecessary while those that focused on other card games were given more importance. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article has been rated as having low importance and and was given a C-class. I believe that the low importance rating was a good representation of the article since it is merely to give new players or spectators a good rundown of basic concepts without going into unnecessary detail. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not discussed this article in class.

Castroalexis07 (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)