User:Cja2023/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Wattpad

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I've used Wattpad, personally, and have done some research on it for previous classes, so I have some interest and knowledge about the topic already. I want to evaluate this article because it may be one I'm interested in contributing to for this project or will, at least, provide a jumping-off point for other articles I'm interested in.

Evaluate the article

1. The lead for this article has a strong introductory sentence that concisely explains the purpose and function of Wattpad. However, the rest of the lead does not do a strong job of summarizing what the rest of the article will cover, as it doesn't list out any headings or major section-titles. Rather, it presents (rather arbitrary) information about stories published on Wattpad---information that will be repeated later on.
2. All of the article's content is relative to the topic. For something as vast and socially relevant as Wattpad, the article is appropriately concise, although there are some sections that I would have fleshed out a bit more, such as the "New Authors and Teens," "Fan Fiction," and "Effects on Writers" sections. I think that all of the content is up to date, although there is a section focused on statistics from 2020 that could probably be updated. I think that the "Publishing" section could benefit from a sub-section that goes into more detail regarding how Wattpad has effected the publishing industry in the 21st century and an addition to the "Effects on Writers" section that potentially focuses on the pedagogical potential of Wattpad. From what I've read, the topic doesn't deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps; the closest it gets to focusing on an underrepresented demographic is through a brief section discussing Wattpad's most famous author who is from the Philippines.
3. The tone of the piece was very neutral, although the Talk Page discussed how so many of the sources were pulled from PR or popular articles online rather than scholarly, fact-check articles. There aren't many opportunities for viewpoints to be presented in this article, although the article does seem to glorify Wattpad as some sort of cultural mecca. A contributor to the Talk Page pointed this out and suggested adding a section about how Wattpad has also provided a space for writers to publish works glorifying unhealthy tropes that typically wouldn't have made it through traditional publishing, not to mention how for every good story there are ten bad stories published. There are no blatant attempts at persuasion, but I think amendments could be made in providing a more balanced viewpoint of Wattpad as a platform.
4. As previously mentioned, the sources are not all appropriate. Some are from Wattpad HQ and are, thus, biased, some are popular articles written by people involved with Wattpad, and a select few are scholarly, peer-reviewed, or fact-checked articles. The Talk Page does have a warning regarding the terrible sourcing and encourages people to use verifiable and neutral sources, as many of the ones currently used are "too closely associated with the subject." After doing some digging of my own, I have found a number of neutral sources discussing Wattpad; although the straight facts about the platform's accomplishments and purpose can be presented neutrally regardless of the source, when discussing the platforms effects on writers on impact on the publishing industry, it's important that the references don't come from Wattpad, itself. That being said, all the sources are current---most of the information cited comes from 2018-present---and there seems to be a variety of authors referenced.
5. Personally, I believe the article is both well-written and well-organized. There are a few spelling errors here and there, but they don't drastically impact the readability or flow of the article. I think that the "Usage" section could be organized a bit more effectively and should be split in two: "Usage" and "Publishing." The sections are largely appropriate, except some of them are titled in a way that seems ambiguous and rather unrelated to the information covered in the section itself (ex. "In the Philippines," "Paid Stories," "New Authors and Teens").
6. Besides the Wattpad logo, there are no images used on the page at all. I would suggest a screen grab of the Wattpad homepage or even a photo of some of the titles they continuously reference throughout the article, such as The Kissing Booth and After.
7. In the Talk Page, a large portion of discussion is related to the sources used in this article, as so many of them are not independent or neutral. There are a few recommendations for sections that I think would be really useful and interesting to add as they would provide a more balanced tone to the article's slightly optimistic perspective. The article is of interest to 4 WikiProjects: computing, apps, internet, and media. However, to each of these Wikiprojects, the Wattpad article is rated "start-class" and "low-importance" across the board. The consensus in the Talk Page that the article pulls from too many skewed sources seems to be a green flag in terms of contributors, though, as there aren't any large disagreements or edit wars happening and everyone seems to be working towards a shared goal of making the page more verifiable.
8. While the article reads very well and does a great job of being concise both in terms of content and organization, its largest shortcoming is how it references a number of unreliable sources. That being said, the article covers relevant topics that fall under "Wattpad," including publishing, fan fiction, history/founders, and usage, although I think that it could stand to expand on the topics of "publishing" and "effects on writers." For those reasons, I'd say that the article is slightly under-developed and would benefit from a few additions and a bit of re-organization in the "usage" section in order to make the page seem less cluttered towards the bottom half. Overall, the article is very informative and well-written, it just needs to update it's sources and begin working towards presenting content from a more balanced perspective.