Talk:Accessibility in Video Games

Review for Sarah VanDeRyt's Accessibility in Video Games article:

1. Length When checking the length of the entire page, excluding the bibliography, the article is 2842 words, which is only slightly shorter than the 3000 +-100 word limit. Even though this length is slightly shorter than the required 2900 words (3000-100), I feel like with edits, this article could easily reach that word count and potentially even beyond it, so 50 words shorter than 2900 is not a very big problem. Plus, the word count means that most of the work for the article has been done, and leaves you with room to add on additional information if required.

2. Structure The article does have an opening paragraph introducing the topic and describing in brief detail the concerns and other issues while providing data that helps illuminate the issue (specifically, that 9% of US population has a disability that negatively affects their video gaming experience and that 2% has one that completely inhibits them from playing video games). I really enjoyed the opening paragraph but I feel like it could be made clearer in that you put the data first and the analysis (where you say that more accessible video games gain a larger audience) instead of putting the analysis first and data second. Moreover, I feel like the introduction could include some of your points below, including on modding and an introduction to the regulations and advocacy sections, along with more introduction on the health risks so that it better sets up the rest of your article.

3. Clarity Barriers to Entry - Disabilities section - Very clear. I like how you break down disabilities into the five types and explain all of them and how they affect the video gaming experience. I feel like this part of the article was done really well.

Barriers to Entry - Inexperience section - Also very clear. I really like the dark souls example as it really shows how having a game with a big learning curve can make it less accessible to people simply because it is hard to pick up and hard to play.

History - Modding section I like the history part of the article and how you mentioned the earliest mods were in the 1970s with a mod for pong. This is very cool. One issue I see is that after you mention the 1970s, you don't really give any other dates for the rest of the history section, which kind of makes it hard to follow and I feel like for a section titled "History" it would likely be better to include more dates (years) in the section to make the article flow better and give it a chronological timeline. History - Notable milestones section - I like how milestones is broken down into software and hardware and how you give clear dates for the hardware and software innovations that were made (and how you mention specific examples of these new technologies). I really like how you specify dates too in this section.

Regulations - The assassins creed example where ubisoft made subtitles mandatory is a really good example. Also the government regulations are a good example too that definitely adds information to your article.

Advocacy - This section is good I like how you listed the organizations that advocate for accessibility in games and how you give concrete examples regarding what each organization does.

Future projects - This section is good too, I like the concrete examples and how you give examples of Meta/Pimax/Xbox's future plans. Nothing wrong with this section. One thing, you might have to give a citation for "As of January 2022, this controller has yet to be released" since there is no source linked for this info.

Ethical Dilemmas - I understand the health risks (flashing lights) but I feel like this section needs expanding. Can you find some other ethics issues for video game accessibility and include them too? I am not too familiar with video game accessibility but I feel like having more ethical dilemmas here would be better. By this I mean like I understand what the issue is but it would be helpful to add some more viewpoints and other issues in regards to accessibility.

Sources - The sources are good and your statements are backed up by sources (with an exception mentioned earlier) so I do not see much issues in this area.

4. Objective reporting (Neutral point of view) There is objective reporting, they cite facts from sources and don't inject their own opinions and yes, they do simply describe the controversy in an unbiased way.