User:Aaph/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Forsen

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I find that Wikipedia has made largely deficient efforts in articles on Twitch and Twitch streamers, and although the sources on such subjects can be scarce and of questionable quality, I think of any Twitch related subject is of sufficient notoriety to warrant a complete article, it must be Sebastian "Forsen" Fors. His impact on Twitch culture remains dynamic and forceful, and is felt in all corners of the platform whether consciously or not. Even if claims like these may not be reflected in relevant, reliable sources, Forsen is of sufficient notability that his Wikipedia presence should be, if nothing else, more than a stub. The existing article on Forsen leaves much room for improvement, being largely devoid of organization as well as detail, providing opportunities to both expand existing content and fill in content gaps. Especially helpful is the body of references the article carries but, in my opinion, fails to fully leverage.

Evaluate the article

• 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.