User:Adam12202/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I have decided to evaluate the "Tik Tok" article.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article as it is a popular app that millions of people use daily. I wanted an article that covered a very popular topic because that means a lot of people have engaged with it. I feel as if since the app is so popular, the wikipedia article should be polished compared to others.

Evaluate the article
After reviewing the article, it seems to stay very relevant to the topic. The introduction was a little confusing as they explained the app and the growth in two sentences. I would argue the introduction failed to have enough details as to what exactly the app truly is. However, nothing distracted me or took my attention away when scrolling through. The article is definitely up to date as it shows the last update of TikTok was 12 days ago. The information within the article also seems very balanced. They cover the gist, while also covering the content and usage, the user privacy, bans and attempted bans and even workplace conditions. At first, I was skeptical that the article failed to include people who got very relevant and popular on the app, but in the "content and usage" section, they clearly cover people like Charli D'amelio getting famous off the app. The only critique I have about the layout is it would make more sense to have the history come right after the brief introduction. Going from the introduction to the corporate structure and then to the history is a weird layout. If I did not know what TikTok was, it would have taken me a while to actually figure out what it is just based off this article. In regard to the bias, I would say this article is not biased. At first, I was mainly seeing a lot about the positive boosts that TikTok has gotten. However, there is a little section that squeezed in to discuss workplace conditions. Exposing tik tok for having poor working conditions definitely shows that they are not biased by only promoting the app. On top of this, they also discuss mental health and how TikTok may be hard to balance. After reviewing the links, it seems that they all work really well and guide me to relevant sources. I would say every link I clicked on came to a source that accurately backed up what was being discussed in the wikipedia article. I will say a lot of the articles linked led me to common websites and after clicking for a bit, I did not stumble upon many peer-reviewed articles. The way the article was written did throw me off. It does convey all the information, but I would not call it "easy to read". I felt there were so many details that it actually made it harder to read. I understand how big TikTok is and how it can get confusing with the amount of information people try to squeeze in, but it comes across unorganized. The article does have proper headings and sub-headings for each section, but just the order feels a little weird. On the other hand, the grammar is very well done and I did not see any typos at all while evaluating. Where I was left confused was the lack of photos and videos. This app is all about visual media, so it was very surprising to read an article that slightly showed actual visual media with it. There is only one video even on the page and it does not accurately describe what TikTok is at all. Everything else within the article is all words. Behind the scenes, I would definitely say they are trying to represent this topic as lightly as possible. They do minimum to show the creativity within the app, but go above and beyond at the factual information that came with the app. Overall, I would say this article does a good job at going over the gist of the app. It says what it needs to say and goes over a vast majority of topics. This article could easily be improved with tons more visuals and video examples that accurately demonstrate the creativity of the app. I would say this article definitely passes the test, but with a solid 65. I find TikTok to be a very fun, enjoyable app, so it was odd to see such a dull page to represent it.