Difference between revisions of "Talk:Riot Games"

Latest revision as of 18:14, 2 February 2022

Alex,

This is a great topic! I’m surprised that no one else has thought to write about this before. I enjoyed reading your article and I learned a lot of new things about Riot and the ethical issues surrounding them. By my count, the body of your article is around 2,860 words. It’s possible I miscounted, but it looks like you may need to go into more detail for a section or two of your article.

Your article seems to meet all the structural requirements. The opening paragraph provides the reader with a summary of important information about Riot. I love the infobox you included at the top right of your article. One improvement you could make in the opening paragraph is correcting your grammar/spelling. Your usage of “it’s” is incorrect (it should be “its” where you used it) and you have a couple unnecessary commas. The body of the article is split into logical sections, and I appreciate that each controversy has its own subsection. You make some grammatical and spelling errors in the body of your article as well, which should be straightforward to fix. Sometimes, your phrasing can be a bit awkward. This can be fixed by reading your article aloud and listening for sentences that sound wordy or improper. In addition, you include many direct quotes in your article. From reading Wikipedia articles, I have noticed that they rarely use direct quotes, instead opting for paraphrasing. This is a change you could make to make your article more closely resemble their style. You include a lot of references and they all link to reliable sources, which is great. There are still parts of your article that I believe aren’t adequately sourced, such as parts of the History and Class Action Lawsuit sections. Overall though, you have done a great job with the structure of your article.

The ethical issues presented in your article were made very clear. You did a good job summarizing the issues and they were nicely wrapped up in a way that showed their importance. You explained the consequences of each issue in a clear way. You could elaborate more on the Scott Gelb situation – what did the community think? What about other Riot employees? In addition, I think you could move the Forced Arbitration section so it becomes a subsection of Sexual Harassment and Discrimination, since you reference the class action lawsuit and since the controversy around the forced arbitration clause centered around sexual harassment.

For the most part, you do a good job being an objective reporter, both on factual information and on ethical issues. You give multiple perspectives on all issues, even when it seems one side is clearly in the wrong. Your statements are all backed up by references. You do not argue for anything specifically, just describe, which is great. There are occasional times where you provide your own interpretation, such as saying that Riot “seems to accept the criticism with dignity” in your Chronoshift section. I agree with your interpretation, but this can be seen as subjective. You could also make sure that every stakeholder involved in a controversy has their perspective discussed. For example, in your Forced Arbitration section, you give Riot’s perspective, but not any other. Who was calling for Riot to get rid of their forced arbitration clause in their contracts? Was it employees? The media? It’s something that could be elaborated on (along with the Scott Gelb situation I mentioned above).

Overall, I liked your article a lot. I think this is a wonderful first draft. With some small grammar, phrasing, sourcing, and content revisions, it would be difficult to tell this apart from a genuine Wikipedia article. Great job!

-Robert Miner