Difference between revisions of "Talk:Video Game Content Rating Systems"
(Reviewed article) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Length == | == Length == | ||
| − | The length of this article is roughly 145 words, which is shorter than the 3000-word count but it means you have a lot more in the future to write which I look forward to. Your headings give a lot of opportunity for a lot more words and works because of how detailed the subject matter is and how many sources there are for something like this, so you shouldn't worry. | + | The length of this article is roughly 145 words, which is shorter than the 3000-word count but it means you have a lot more in the future to write which I look forward to. Your headings give a lot of opportunity for a lot more words and works because of how detailed the subject matter is and how many sources there are for something like this, so you shouldn't worry. I would advise expanding the summary paragraph since it's another good way to increase the word count. |
== Structure == | == Structure == | ||
| − | The three major components of a Wikipedia article are; an introductory paragraph that summarizes the subject matter, the body of the article and all of its respective sections, and statements that are backed up by references to reliable sources. So far as the article goes, we only have the introductory paragraph that is summarizing the subject and there are a handful of references but not yet a body but there is a nice framework for one. In my opinion, the introductory paragraph could be expanded on more to maybe make a couple of paragraphs to compromise the overall summary since the body has the potential to be huge. | + | The three major components of a Wikipedia article are; an introductory paragraph that summarizes the subject matter, the body of the article and all of its respective sections, and statements that are backed up by references to reliable sources. So far as the article goes, we only have the introductory paragraph that is summarizing the subject and there are a handful of references but not yet a body but there is a nice framework for one. In my opinion, the introductory paragraph could be expanded on more to maybe make a couple of paragraphs to compromise the overall summary since the body has the potential to be huge. I am very curious about criticism of rating systems. Is that to imply a criticism of rating systems in general or just specific systems? Ethical concerns strike me as particularly interesting although I feel like "ethical concerns" and "criticism" shouldn't just be together but maybe "ethical concerns" could be a subset of "criticism" since there is probably other kinds of criticism against rating systems that might be interesting to report, especially given how common they are, and it might be a better structure this way. |
== Clarity == | == Clarity == | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
== Objective Reporting == | == Objective Reporting == | ||
| − | The reporting feels extremely objective and it's complete with many good sources. Overall, this MediaWiki article has objectively reported the main issues faced with video game content rating systems. I do think that a lot more could be added regarding their history, why they exist, why there are so many conflicting opinions and standards since they're so many and how a single standardization is possible given the fast amount of cultures that exist that play video games. Overall, good start so far, and I'm sure there's a lot more to go. | + | The reporting feels extremely objective and it's complete with many good sources. Overall, this MediaWiki article has objectively reported the main issues faced with video game content rating systems. I do think that a lot more could be added regarding their history, why they exist, why there are so many conflicting opinions and standards since they're so many and how a single standardization is possible given the fast amount of cultures that exist that play video games. One big suggestion that I'm not seeing so far is how this relates to ethics in information. I have a feeling that it's going to be included in later versions of this article but so far I haven't personally made the connection between rating systems and how ethical they are. Maybe whether a standardized rating system is itself ethical since it may or may not be able to fully account for all kinds of cultures around the world? Overall, good start so far, and I'm sure there's a lot more to go. |
Revision as of 21:00, 3 February 2022
Length
The length of this article is roughly 145 words, which is shorter than the 3000-word count but it means you have a lot more in the future to write which I look forward to. Your headings give a lot of opportunity for a lot more words and works because of how detailed the subject matter is and how many sources there are for something like this, so you shouldn't worry. I would advise expanding the summary paragraph since it's another good way to increase the word count.
Structure
The three major components of a Wikipedia article are; an introductory paragraph that summarizes the subject matter, the body of the article and all of its respective sections, and statements that are backed up by references to reliable sources. So far as the article goes, we only have the introductory paragraph that is summarizing the subject and there are a handful of references but not yet a body but there is a nice framework for one. In my opinion, the introductory paragraph could be expanded on more to maybe make a couple of paragraphs to compromise the overall summary since the body has the potential to be huge. I am very curious about criticism of rating systems. Is that to imply a criticism of rating systems in general or just specific systems? Ethical concerns strike me as particularly interesting although I feel like "ethical concerns" and "criticism" shouldn't just be together but maybe "ethical concerns" could be a subset of "criticism" since there is probably other kinds of criticism against rating systems that might be interesting to report, especially given how common they are, and it might be a better structure this way.
Clarity
So far as I've read fo the introductory paragraph, this is very clear in defining the subject manner by going over a bit of what it is and the difficulties associated with how there are many rating systems around the world and the lack of standardization with people recognizing the actual legitimacy of such systems. It's something I've never personally thought about and it was explained very clearly.
Objective Reporting
The reporting feels extremely objective and it's complete with many good sources. Overall, this MediaWiki article has objectively reported the main issues faced with video game content rating systems. I do think that a lot more could be added regarding their history, why they exist, why there are so many conflicting opinions and standards since they're so many and how a single standardization is possible given the fast amount of cultures that exist that play video games. One big suggestion that I'm not seeing so far is how this relates to ethics in information. I have a feeling that it's going to be included in later versions of this article but so far I haven't personally made the connection between rating systems and how ethical they are. Maybe whether a standardized rating system is itself ethical since it may or may not be able to fully account for all kinds of cultures around the world? Overall, good start so far, and I'm sure there's a lot more to go.
