Article for Improvement 1: The Sims (video game) edit

SimCity is hyperlinked in the overview, but not in the Gameplay section immediately after despite the other variations, like SimEarth, being linked. Inconsistent.
Music section specifies a set of songs released in Simlish. The names of these songs would be useful information to expand on this short section.
Modding scene section needs expansion. It could discuss create a sim or the ability to enter cheats/how the sequels have each become more modifiable via user market.
Expansion pack section in need of citations.

Article for Improvement 2: Magic 8-Ball edit

The article could add a section detailing the use of a Magic 8-Ball in Popular Culture, TV and Film, as well as a section on variations (superfluous, but it may be applicable).
Could also include popularity.
Under design, how to use could potentially be a separate subsection.

Potential Articles edit

Article Assessment 1: 2008 Coca-Cola 600 edit

The audience for my article is specific and specialized—most likely a NASCAR fan looking for factual information and/or statistics. I would imagine they have a good base knowledge of NASCAR, but they might be visiting this page for clarification about this specific event. The average page view per day is 4. The purpose of this article as far as I can tell is for quick information and race narrative based on other NASCAR FAs. The basic race information is present, but it is missing citations (tagged as such in May 2016). It is also written in a TV transcript tone (tagged as needing encyclopedic tone revision in May 2016), but I notice this tone in other WikiNASCAR articles including the featured article covering this same race in a different year. Compared to a FA about the 2007 Coca-Cola 600, this entire article is lacking information (although that article does appear verbose to me). People who are very invested and interested in NASCAR may be of interest in my editorial process, particularly in gaining a sense of what they would hope to get out of an article like this. Compared to a similar article, this one is underdeveloped and can benefit from additional information--more so than I thought when taking it on. The 2007 Coca-Cola 600 which I compared mine to is a FA and has a long lead, which I thought might be bad, and a background section like my article; it also has a practice/qualifying section--which my article has barely touched on and extensive commentary of the race itself (almost too much to be of interest in my opinion) and a post-race section which is helpful. Also, the stats and results are formatted into different more helpful charts.

As far as where I feel this article could benefit, I would like to add “Attendance” and “Radio in the United States Section” to Race Details like the other FA. The spot “…and was televised in the United States by Fox Sports. Radio coverage was handled by Sirius Satellite Radio and the Speedway Motorsports, Inc.-owned Performance Racing Network on terrestrial radio stations” does not seem like necessary information to include in the lead. I think it could benefit from information featured in the other FA such as who won the race, so it could potentially be substituted with: “The # lap race was won by…” and include the top three winners. In addition to adding citations everywhere in the article, I plan to rework the race section for appropriate wording while developing the qualifying (or practice) section to the best of my ability. Hopefully in my attempt to find sources applicable to this article, I will find additional relevant information to flesh it out in a manner similar to the FA. Given that it is a past event, a post-race section would be a nice addition as well. Lastly, the results section can use reformatting—namely into qualifying and race results, but also including a “Standings After the Race” section like the other highly rated NASCAR articles. It situates the event in my opinion. I am sure I will come up with more stuff to change as I go along.

Article Assessment 2: Fall of the Fascist regime in Italy edit

The audience for this article is more general—most likely a student or someone looking for historical information. Their base knowledge could have a wide range from absolutely none to extensive. I would imagine most having a working understanding of fascism, but someone looking to contextualize that with its downfall in Italy. It is important to note the article is part of a series about Mussolini AND a separate series about fascism. The article has extensive information (with a history of superfluous information being deleted), but it is missing information in the “Allied Reaction” section under “Aftermath”. It is effective in a way, but it is not easily digestible or encyclopedic in manner. However, the level of detail in the article itself and rationale in the edit history is impressive. This article has extensive edit history (mostly rewording and small stuff), including about the name of the article. There have been several discussions regarding the scope of the article itself in regard to renaming it, and there has also been a post on the talk page from 2016 about the article having poor English. The article creator has worked on it as recent as 2016. User “Clivemacd” also appeared to have a highly active period, as well as “Qbli2mHd” made the most recent edit in January 2019. As far as becoming a great article, the information is there but in need of reworking to better serve its purpose which is to provide information as opposed to narrative for someone doing research or otherwise looking at this specific event.

The article has been flagged as reading more like a story than an encyclopedia and as using abbreviations that may be confusing. The article is under WikiProject Italy and WikiProject Politics. It is hard to compare this article to FAs or GAs within these projects because the topic range is really broad. The basic organization of the article (background, plot/event itself, and the aftermath) is similar to other historical articles like this. However, the written style of the article is the primary problem and difference between this article and a GA. The primary task at hand is rewording to an appropriate encyclopedic tone. The series chart on the righthand side of the page is really useful, so the article does have really useful stuff like that. However, we see opinion: “the military situation for Italy looked bleak”. We also see irrelevant and unnecessary information: “The first two hours of the meeting were as usual a monologue by Hitler, blaming the Italians for their weak military performance and asking for draconian measures: Mussolini was unable to speak a word”, “For Ambrosio, after Feltre Mussolini was useless, and he realized that any hope that he could pull the chestnuts out of the fire was an illusion.”, “the 28 members of the Grand Council met around a massive U-shaped table in the parrot room (the anteroom of the globe saloon, the office of Mussolini) in Palazzo Venezia. The Duce’s seat was a high chair, and his table was decorated with a red drape with the fasces.[107] …”-- someone mentioned deleting this stuff on the talk page and I assume they just never did.