Talk:Entertainment Software Rating Board/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 20:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Claiming this review now. Tezero (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Games with questionable content" - Not sure if this is neutral. I'd prefer "controversial" or something like that.
Why is that section titled "Background" when a good amount of the information comes from after the ESRB formed? I'd prefer one of these two options:

Call it "History" and divide it into a couple of subsections: maybe "Background" for the first three paragraphs and "Formation and evolution" for the fourth and fifth.
Call it "Background and formation" and move the last paragraph somewhere else.

"The ESRB system has generally been considered effective" - Somewhat weasely, and not helping with the NPOV. Who has considered it effective? How much?
"inaccurate perception by the industry" - Also somewhat POV-y. How is this necessarily inaccurate? In my experience, most adults still think of games as children's products. Remove "inaccurate" or rephrase this somehow.
More generally, the whole sentence "The stigma is affected by multiple factors; the inaccurate perception by the industry that video games are generally considered children's products has influenced objections towards AO-rated games by publishers, given that the mere existence of a Wii version of Manhunt 2 was condemned by Hillary Clinton because children could "act out each of the many graphic torture scenes and murders" in the game with its motion controls." is kind of confusing and a run-on.
"explicit porn" isn't really formal language.
Not an issue for GA, but the article relies an awful lot on Ars-Technica.
Also not standing in the way here, but see if you can find an image of some of the ESRB members or the organization's headquarters.

Tezero (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To note, the "explicit porn" line was used directly by the person I am quoting. It's not our words. But I've applied some of the tweaks you've suggested. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I was looking for quote marks around "explicit porn" and must have glanced over them. I've made some more adjustments and looked at yours, and am now okay with passing the article. Tezero (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]