User:Kaimcamc/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
BeReal

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it has become a very popular app among a lot of people. Along with it being popular, it is a new form of communication and it allows its users to share about their day with two pictures, preferably at the time of the notification. I think it is a very interesting way of communicating and I find the app to be a fun way to share about your everyday life with your friends and family. I think looking at the newest and most popular forms of social media and communication through technology is important because it allows us to expand our knowledge.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The lead sentence includes the general information for what BeReal is and when it was released. The first paragraph provides the basic information about the developers, when the app was released, and when it gained popularity. The lead section does not include an overview of the article, but it does include the basics of the app and explains what the main feature is and what its users do on the app. Overall, the lead is concise and gives the basic information that any reader would need to understand what the app BeReal is and what it entails.

Content:

Overall, the content of this article is relevant to the topic of the app BeReal. The article is up to date with the current status of BeReal and provides the history of the app along with the features, which provides good information for the reader to understand what the app is and what it is used for. The reception section of the article seems to be a critique of the app and provides information on what people are saying and their opinions about the app. This section provides similar apps and ideas to compare the app to, but needs more information about the user's thoughts and opinions about the app. The features section provides a concise, but detailed overview of the app and its features, but in that section there is information on comparison to other social media apps, which might need to be in its own section, not in the features.

Tone and Balance:

The article is written from a neutral view. It provides the app overview, the positive feedback from users, along with some negative feedback and suggestions that have been provided. In the reception section there seems to be some more negative opinions from other sources about the app and it questions the authenticity of the "late" posts on the app and provides criticism about the ability to post outside of the two minute window. The tone of the writing is not necessarily negative from the author, more from the sources that were used.

Sources and References:

Information about the app is backed up through 29 different sources. The quality of the sources range from online websites to news websites to some online blogs. The sources are current and range within the lifespan of the app. Information about the app was correct information retrieved from the sources and the online websites were also used to gain insight from the app users. These sources are not peer-reviewed academic journal sources, but because of the topic of the article, that is not surprising. The sources provide more current information about the app and its users. The links of the sources work.

Organization and Writing Quality:

This article is well written. It is concise and to the point, while providing the needed information to understand the app and what the users of the app do. There were no grammatical or spelling errors that I noticed. Overall, it is organized well.

Images and Media:

This article does not provide any images or media, besides the picture of the BeReal app. A few images of the app when it is opened and an example of what it would look like to a user may provide an even better understanding to the reader about the dynamics of the app and help visualize using it.

Talk Page Discussion:

The talk page of this article does not have a lot of conversations. It is mostly filled with the initial creation conversation about the page and the topic, along with some edits and critiques. This article is rated start-class, low-importance on WikiProject Apps, WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject Companies.

Overall Impressions:

The status of this article would be ranked low importance and start class according to WikiProjects. The strengths of this article include the concise writing and information about the app, but there is still some more information that could help expand the article. Information on the "guidelines" of the app may be beneficial to the article, along with some more information from the creators and developers. Expansion on the apps claim of "authenticity" would be interesting and the debate on the apps late posting could help better the article. Overall, the article has a great start to it, especially for it being a starting article. It has quality writing and information, and more expansion on some of the information that is provided in the article will help improve its overall quality.