User:GizelCenizal/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating this article about Bitstrips.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Bitstrips, or more commonly known as Bitmoji nowadays, is a topic that I find both interesting and relevant to the theories of media. Because it was found inside the Internet Culture WikiProject, I drew connections between communications and Bitstrips as an online social media. Moreover, as a user of both the defunct website Bitstrips and the mobile application Bitmoji, I am familiar with this topic.

Evaluate the article
This page initially features many traits of a strong article such as a lead that introduces important information, a clear explanation on what Bitstrips is, its year of origin, and key figureheads. Despite this introduction, it does lack information that would be relevant to mention such as:


 * "In July 2016, Snap, Inc. announced that it had acquired the company;"

Throughout the article, there is no indication of how much Snap, Inc. acquired the company for. While it does cite an article headlined "Why Snapchat bought Toronto-based Bitstrips for $100M"  within its references, it omits the information in the main article.

The subsequent contents of this article have little to no organization, its contents including a single subsection describing Bitstrips' history. Within the history section of the article, the details of the website's genesis and company's formation are both well- explain. However, it relies too heavily on the use of quotations. While it is important to use sources, it is also equally important to ensure that the quotations are not substituting the actual contents of the article:


 * "Brown explained that 'it's so difficult and time-consuming to tell a story in comic book form, drawing the same characters again and again in these tiny little panels, and just the amount of craftsmanship required. And even if you can do it well, which I never could, it takes years to make a story.'"

Rather than including this quotation, I would have suggested to summarize the key point of that quote and citing appropriately.

Additionally, creating more sections within the contents of this article would have made the information presented more digestible for the reader. Within the History section, the article delves into the topic of the creation and foundation of Bitstrips as a company and the several expansions the corporation took on during its lifetime. This includes the creation of the online web application Bitstrips.com, the educational comic making software Bitstrips for Schools, Facebook application and mobile app, and Bitstrips transitioning into the brand Bitmoji under Snap, Inc. Having a clear division between each stage of the company's history would have made it much easier for a reader to skim through. The article never clearly differentiates between these properties, treating Bitstrips.com, Bitstrips for Schools, Bitstrips Facebook and Bitmoji as one homogenous web and mobile application.

The references used by this page consist of new articles found online from sources such as TechCrunch, Business Insider, and Wired. From my own personal research into more information on Bitstrips, this was very diligent in finding appropriate sources from the limited selection available.

Moreover, this article makes little use of the images and media feature, with the exception of the Bitstrips logo, which is not captioned. This article may have enhanced by the inclusion of images of comics that could be made using the Bitstrips website or examples of the Bitmoji avatars mentioned in its History section.

The Talk Page for the Bitstrips Wikipedia article features few discussions, mainly raising concerns about the page not mentioning Bitstrips' source of income, and the lack of explanation about the application's service. This article is included in several WikiProjects including: Apps, Internet culture, Software/Computing, Canada/Toronto, Articles for creation and Companies. Additionally, the article is as start-class and low-important in each WikiProject it is associated with.

My overall opinion is that article is poorly developed, lacking both structure and relevant points. However, if its were contents reorganized and included relevant information regarding its topic, it would greatly improve the quality of the article.