Talk:Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG)

From SI410
Jump to: navigation, search


According to my count, this article has 1,065 words, which is more than enough for the rough draft version of our articles, but of course short of the total length for the final draft.


The author has the major three components necessary for a good article. It has an opening paragraph that summarizes the issue at stake, it has multiple sections in the body, and it has reliable sources to back up its statements as references. I think the introduction does a good job of summarizing and defining an MMOG. The body is broken up into many different sections, which does a good job of clarifying many different aspects of MMOGs. However, some sections seem unfinished or could use more elaboration as to what each section means/is about. For example, the Genres section cuts off abruptly and the Battle Arenas section is a little confusing, especially if the reader is not a video game player.


My one major criticism of this article has to do with clarity. There seem to be numerous grammar errors throughout this article that can make it hard to understand at times and, therefore, less clear. Additionally, any ethical issues in the article are not immediately clear from reading it. Although the article does a great job of defining MMOGs and explaining them, there was no coverage of ethical issues that I could find. If the author can clean up the grammar errors and more clearly define any potential ethical issues regarding MMOGs, I would find this article to be a great rough draft.

Objective Reporting

This article does a great job of reporting on issues in an objective and neutral way. Everything is objectively defined, reported, and backed up by sources in this article. There does not seem to be any areas of this article that suffer from subjective commentary in a major way, but there are a few instances of it. For example, "The ability to play games become even easier with hand held mobile devices...". Although I do not think that this is a major violation of neutral point of view, there seem to be a few points in this article where assumptions or conclusions are reached on behalf of the reader instead of explaining to the reader why something is 'easier'.