Talk:Katie Zhao

The draft is 1000 words, I think you are on pace for length, no section felt too short. When looking at the structure of your piece, the article does a good job in the opening section focusing on when the relationship started, what games it includes, how the dispute is viewed, and the future uncertainty. The next segment of the Wikipedia page does a good job of distinctly presenting the bulk of the matter on how NetEase cuts ties and provides examples of events where employees of NetEase destroyed a blizzard statue. Finally, there is a clear usage of references to back up events such as the long-term path forward for the company in China and how ties were cut by providing multiple stories of actual events that took place such as the statue getting torn down. I do think one element that could be done better in the body of the article is maybe explaining the dissolution some more because I feel that it garners more attention than it received. One way to do this would be to use layperson terminology for some of the more complicated aspects of this section such as the renewal of the agreement as well. As for the structure and overall presentation of the article, I did notice that there were some typos, for example, one typo was “long-trn" in the dissolution paragraph. I do think that this article could benefit from a section that maybe discusses more of what the conflict will represent going forward and I believe this would warrant its own section header as well. The issue itself is clear and evident of which groups it is between and what the issue is about, you present the matter between the companies and what this disagreement could mean for the future of both groups. In terms of the ethical issues presented in the article, there is a good job using company names and referencing the companies or groups with the word “the” and not using language that is isolating or indicative of opinion but rather a statement of fact based on what is known about the controversy. In the article, there is a clear attempt to remain neutral on the matter and be objective. You do not use personal opinions in the article and provide sources for all of the events that took place or for information that was referenced.