User:Jiyoonh/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Reddit.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because Reddit is an app where several online communities are, separated into groups of specific interests by the r/ tag. This matters because an online forum site that is structured into organized topics (like Reddit) makes asking questions, receiving answers, and providing answers easier, and can engage people by connecting them to a similar interest efficiently. My preliminary impression of Reddit was that it was well organized with the r/ tag and introductory FAQ pages pinned in a lot of pages and that there were a lot more users than I was expecting in many niche categories, like pages dedicated to certain characters in a game.

Evaluate the article
The lead paragraph overall did a great job in introducing Reddit in a concise way. Rather than focusing on summarizing what the rest of the article would talk about, it focused more on showing how Reddit works and is structured, and how it first came to be. Although structured in a nice way, there was a lot of information about how the monetary valuation of Reddit increased, which I believe belongs more in a section of the article (maybe in the Corporate Affairs section) rather than the introduction, where the topics within the article should be summarized, which it was not.

As for the content, all is related to Reddit and is up-to-date, the latest citations being from December of 2021. The content is mainly focused on the "Community and Culture" section and "Controversies" section, understandably so due to the nature of the topic.

The article's tone is neutral, even when discussing Reddit's many controversies every year. Rather than explaining viewpoints (ex. Reddit moderator viewpoints vs the users), the controversies are explained using facts and statements of what happened, without trying to sway the reader into one side. I would like to see more viewpoints explained, for I believe it would bring more depth into the controversies and how they were received and dealt with.

The sources and references for this article are all from credible sources, many from newspaper sources or journals like The New York Times or Wall Street Journal. They are all recent or the latest news regarding an incident that happened in a year, and they have diverse authors that are credible. Most of the sources are from online articles rather than academic journals, but since Reddit is a platform online, they are the best available sources that are related to Reddit. The links work well when accessed.

The writing quality is great, there are no grammatical errors and each sentence is concise and easy to read while getting the main point across. The organization of the article overall is also great, but I think that the Advertising section and the Corporate Affairs sections could merge together into one section under Corporate Affairs, instead of two short separate sections, since their content flows together well without the separation of sections.

The article provides images that showcase various examples given in the writing, like the original logo or formatting of Reddit when it was first created. Under each image, there is a small caption explaining what the image has captured as well as links to another Wikipedia page when regarding important aspects, like the founder of Reddit. The photos all adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Some of the photos, like the old format of Reddit, are hard to see because it is quite small, so the user has to click on the image to actually see the contents of it, so sizing adjustments are recommended.

The conversations are mostly about recently updated happenings that occurred in Reddit communities, with discussions about if these topics should be added in or not. The article is rated B-class, which I agree upon as some structural changes are needed and topic additions would make the article more complete, like more additions to the Community Traditions section, for there are many more than what is listed and explained currently.

The article is in a state where it does not need many changes, but a few additions and edits may be needed for the user to get a complete picture of the complex communities and workings of Reddit. The article does a great job of citing sources and updating them when necessary and using credible sources. The article feels a bit under-developed since Reddit has much more that makes it up. Features like awarding certain users' posts or replies would have a good addition to explain, for many users do not realize how they work and it is a part of how Reddit works. Overall, there are a few points where this article can be improved, in the organization, topics included, and photo displays, but it is an article that is not bad at beginning to explain what Reddit is.