User:Aaph/Choose an Article

Article Selection

Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

Article title

Forsen

Article Evaluation

• Lead Section
  • The article lacks subdivisions entirely (obviously a major issue), and as such I will be regarding its first paragraph as the lead section.
  • The opening sentence does summarize Forsen's present occupation and notability, but since he maintains a large viewer base as a streamer on Twitch despite not having been a competitor in either of the listed games in several years, its claim that he is known for his esports competition is dubious.
  • The opening paragraph is sporadic in focus. Although it makes an appropriate nod to Forsen's fanbase, the place and length of such a mention given the scant detail about Forsen himself is questionable. Additionally, the sentence about the "forsenE" emote seems at best a roundabout claim to notability, and at worst an irrelevant detail.
• Content
  • The second paragraph of the article hastily traces his history as a professional Hearthstone player, mentioning at least two of his achievements as well as his reputation as an expert at the Miracle Rogue deck. There are major content gaps as far as when and how he became a Hearthstone professional, his career beyond and between his achievements, and his retirement from Hearthstone.
  • Another major content gap regards Forsen's history as a professional Starcraft II player. Although mentioned in passing in the opening paragraph, his career and achievements are not given any detail anywhere else in the article.
  • Perhaps the most germane content about Forsen, his streaming career, is relayed in moments and achievements, such as streamer tournaments and viewer records. While such landmarks are important, they only matter in a larger context and timeline rather than as standalone points. The article lacks any information about his transition into full-time streaming, his style, his viewership, and importantly, his community.
• Tone and Balance
  • The article is very neutral and unbiased, with nearly all of its content consisting of impartially relayed facts. Even opinionated claims to his popularity and game expertise are backed with sourced evidence.
  • Although viewpoints might not be overrepresented, the article does give particular focus to Forsen's competitive gaming accomplishments, which arguably misrepresents his notability as a streaming personality.
  • The most fringe viewpoint is perhaps its explanation of Forsen's "rowdy fanbase," which is not necessarily wrong or without sources, but is not backed with as much evidence as it could be.
• Sources and References
  • Every fact in the article is backed by a secondary source, largely articles from gaming websites like Kotaku and Polygon.
  • These largely measure up to journalistic standards, and while their thoroughness could stand to question compared to other news sources, they remain the most thorough and relevant with regards to Forsen and to Twitch.
  • The article has a healthy body of current sources, with more than half coming from at least 2019.
• Organization and Writing Quality
  • The article has no grammatical or spelling errors, and although it is clear and concise, its biggest faults are in its organization. There are no sections or headings of any kind, and the focus of its main paragraphs is often unclear, appearing at times to string together unrelated facts.
  • The article largely lacks elaboration on any of its points, consisting almost entirely of standalone factual statements. While factual grounding is not a fault, the article's lack of detail leaves it without context and without having established a real picture of its subject.
• Images and Media
  • The article has no images at all, even of Forsen himself, which is especially harmful given the benefit visuals would provide, such as instances like its mention of the "forsenE" emote or in charting the history of his career.
• Talk Page Discussion
  • The Talk page discussion about the article is somewhat scarce, with topics mostly consisting of small semi-protected edit requests to keep small facts up to date and accurate.
  • Of note in the Talk page are some of the edits that had been made or considered in the past but are not present in the current state of the article. For example, the article previously mentioned his general viewership numbers, but why this point was removed was not made clear.
  • Another noteworthy discussion in the Talk page pertains to the reliability of sources, with some "reliable" sources being subject to scrutiny for their potential bias, and other edits being argued for but set back by a lack of reliable evidence.
• Overall Impressions
  • The article's strengths include its impartiality, its body of reliable sources, and to some extent, the breadth of its subjects. Its weaknesses include the ambiguity and absence of its organization, its lack of detail on the topics it does cover, and its failure to address certain relevant topics.
  • Overall, the article seems for the most part underdeveloped, as it could be vastly improved with more writing about the topics it has already covered, but is somewhat poorly developed, especially with its lack of headings, organization, and media.

Sources

Option 2

Article title

Cursed Image

Article Evaluation

• Lead Section
  • The introductory sentence is concise and well-written, doing well to define the subject. The elaboration in the following sentence might show room for that definition to be improved, and the definition is not directly sourced.
  • The lead section does not provide an overview of the article's major sections (of which there are only two), but it does allude to its history section.
• Content
  • The history section does well to explain both the concept of the cursed image and its development on the Internet, topics which seem distinct but in fact go hand in hand.
  • The article makes a very dubious connection between cursed images and a genre called "weirdcore" and popular images of liminal spaces.
  • Though they may not warrant their own section, the article should at least mention related genres of blessed and "blursed" images.
• Tone and Balance
  • The article is for the most part quite neutral. Its definition in the lead section can be read as opinionated, but can easily be traced to sources. Its history section, too, grounds its explanation of the concept in secondary sources and quotes with relevant figures such as cursed image curators.
  • The article's "Overlap with liminal spaces" is of questionable neutrality, and is marked as potential original research. Although the article lists sources relevant to the section, its claims lack citation and fail to make a connection to the actual subject of the article.
• Sources and References
  • All the claims in the main section of the article (History) and in its lead section are backed with reliable sources, largely news outlets and blogs. Many of these are as recent as 2019, and some from 2021. Since the subject is a fringe piece of internet culture, there might not be more reliable sources.
  • Almost none of the claims in the "Overlap with liminal spaces" section have citations despite relevant articles listed in the references; likely a reflection of the reliability of these sources.
• Organization and Writing Quality
  • The article is very well written and has no grammar or spelling errors. It maintains a strong balance between concision and detail.
  • Disregarding the questionable "Overlap with liminal spaces" section, the article has only one main section which explains the history and development of the cursed image. The article might lend itself to sections such as related genres and popular deployment.
• Images and Media
  • The first image in the article is appropriately sourced and captioned and is key to understanding the subject. It seems to lack copyright restrictions.
  • The second image in the article relates to liminal spaces and is thus of questionable relevance. Its caption also makes opinionated and potentially original research claims.
  • At times, the article references specific images, and might do well to include them if possible.
• Talk Page Discussion
  • There is no discussion on the Talk page.
  • The article is included in two WikiProjects: Internet, and Internet culture.
• Overall Impressions
  • Overall, the article is well-written and well-sourced, with a strong written approach to explaining its subject. Presently, its most glaring weakness is its second section, which may need to be removed altogether. Were this done, however, although the article would remain well-written, it may still lack enough content to elevate it from stub status, which may reflect the existing sources available on the subject.

Sources

Option 3

Article title

Bad Luck Brian

Article Evaluation

• Lead Section
  • The lead section does describe Bad Luck Brian as a person, but whether it appropriately defines the article's subject depends on whether Bad Luck Brian is to be understood as an internet meme or as an individual. As it stands, its description of the meme is secondary but present in the lead section, and fairly concise and descriptive.
• Content
  • The "Origin" section seems to accurately and descriptively explain the origin of the Bad Luck Brian image, especially as contextualized by the person (Kyle Craven). However, it only hastily describes the image's rise to popularity as a meme.
  • The "Notable depictions" section helps lend notability to the subject and indicate the meme's ballooning beyond meme culture, and contains up to date information.
  • A section called "Kyle Craven" apparently charts Craven's interaction with the internet and seems to aim at detailing his personal life, but only includes Craven's occupation. That such a section exists already calls into question the article's initial regard of Bad Luck Brian as a person, not a meme.
• Tone and Balance
  • The article is quite impartial and balanced, with factual grounding for all of its claims and very little bias or overrepresentation.
  • Regarding viewpoints, most controversial is how the article defines Bad Luck Brian itself, seeming to settle on personhood between the lead section and biography box, but contradicting itself later in the article and making its own stance unclear. At the very least, not enough credence is lent to the memetic status of Bad Luck Brian.
• Sources and References
  • The article's sources are largely reputable news outlets such as The Washington Post and NBC News. Many of its sources are relatively current, ranging from 2018 to 2021. These current sources are not limited to mere events either, with some including extensive histories.
• Organization and Writing Quality
  • The writing quality is robust and without spelling or grammar errors.
  • The organization of the article is mostly logical and intelligible, beginning with "Origin" and then "Notable depictions." Topics like the ascendancy of the meme and its popular reception might warrant their own topics.
  • The "Kyle Craven" section is questionable in several ways, with scant content and confusing focus that would warrant its restructuring or deletion even if it were repurposed as "personal life."
• Images and Media
  • The only image in the article is of the Bad Luck Brian image, and is appropriately captioned but used as a biographical depiction of the person.
  • An example of the Bad Luck Brian image being employed as a meme would be very helpful to the article.
• Talk Page Discussion
  • The Talk page has almost no discussion, only mentions of edit status and irrelevant facts.
  • The article is part of WikiProject Internet culture.
• Overall Impressions
  • The article's approach to the origin and notoriety of the Bad Luck Brian meme are strong, but by far the biggest issue with the article is where it stands on what exactly its subject is. Once again, although it seems to develop as a biography of Kyle Craven, the person in the image, its first section concerns "origin;" a person does not have "origin," but a meme does. A repurposing of the article as a description of the Bad Luck Brian meme would enhance the article's current strengths, pertain to the general public interest in the subject, and enhance clarity and cohesion.

Sources

Option 4

Article title

Article Evaluation

Sources

Option 5

Article title

Article Evaluation

Sources