User:HkateJ/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Lead
The first sentence of the lead is poorly worded, but it does provide the basic definition, which I think is the goal. The lead is missing an overview of the topic. This lead provides a list of genres covered, which should probably be a subsection of the topic but is currently not in the article. Overall, it's too concise.

Content
There isn't a lot of content on this topic. I've done a quick search, and there is more information out there than is used in this article. The article was last updated in 2017, which means it is fairly recent but could be missing some new information.

Tone and Balance
The warning at the top suggests that this is written from the point of view of a fan, but I almost feel it is too sterile, avoiding referencing any major players by name, when that could be very useful. There is some promotion of the idea of booktube as a community that feels unnecessarily positive, as it was unlikely this was in debate.

Sources and References
The sources are annotated among obvious points, while the points that actually introduce new information are lacking any citations at all. Many of the sources are popular news sources that get kickback from talking about certain titles, and even if they're not making money, they're definitely from biased sources. There are scholarly articles out there that aren't included here. On the positive side, the links all seem to work.

Organization
There is not really enough information here for it to be poorly organized. I think structurally, the bulleted lists are the way to go on these topics, but there is so little other text that the bullets feel heavily weighted and bulky.

Images and Media
There is not a single image included here! I'm assuming that's because it will be difficult to find ones that aren't copyrighted. I will work on this as I work on my article.

Checking the talk page
There is nothing on the talk page! It's difficult to believe this is classified as a B-class article.

Overall impressions
Overall, this article is too brief, and not by necessity. There are not enough sources that would be considered reliable. The writing is awkward and bulky. I do have to note that the article does include sections that give a fair idea of what the community is like.