Talk:Telegram (application)
Reviewed by Zach Phillips
LENGTH As of Friday, February 4th, the length of this article is 2,693 words including the headings—excluding references, captions, and the table of contents. In order to meet the 3,000 word requirement, the author needs to write around 200 more words. The length of each section is very typical of other Wikipedia articles. Definitions of each feature are an appropriate length. Length of introductions of subtopics is inconsistent. For example, ‘Sources of Profit’ has an introduction while ‘Controversy’ does not. I believe the ‘Controversy’ section may require an introductory portion similar to what has been provided in other portions of the WikiMedia Article. The author ensures that the length of subcategories is very consistent. No portion of the article is more flushed out than others; each is equally important.
STRUCTURE The Telegram (application) WikiMedia article includes an introductory paragraph that defines the application and its general usage. The introduction is followed by six sections: History, Features, Design, APIs, Sources of Profit, and Controversy. The History portion explores the application’s history since 2013—adding context for the reader. The author then goes in to a discussion of the many features of Telegram. As expected, some of these features require more explanation than others. Next is a brief description of the design of Telegram. The author may want to consider the spacing within this portion—it seems as though it may be inconsistent. The APIs discussion is short—the author may want to expand this section a bit—perhaps describing its usage. How has the Telegram API been utilized in the past: are there any news stories? Is there anything that separates their API from other APIs (i.e. Instagram’s)? Decreased security? The ‘Sources of Profit’ portion of the WikiMedia article is next. I understand that part of the controversy of Telegram is its solicitation of ‘Dark Money’ from foreign investors. An important piece of the puzzle, in my opinion, is that foreign officials can ‘buy’ influence through ‘investment’ on an application that has proven instrumental in organizing people for good and for ill. The author somewhat discusses this topic later in the article, but it feels a bit disconnected. The controversy portion of the article is a sufficient length, more than ⅓ of the entire article. I would recommend sorting these subtopics within the controversy portion by importance. ‘Usage by Terrorist Groups and other Extremists’ is extremely important! I would recommend placing it earlier in the section. The references portion of the article is good!
CLARITY The issue at stake is clear to me. The author discusses each ethical issue listed in the controversy section very effectively. I understand that an immense data collection scheme, alongside storied Russian ties, in addition to other topics, represent ethical concerns of the application. To improve clarity, I would sort these controversies by importance. For the most part the author does this. I also believe the one-line descriptions of each controversy could be clarified. For example, ‘Russian Ties’ is very clear and effective. ‘Non secret mode’ and ‘Location insecurity’ are a little bit ambiguous. Some of the grammar is inconsistent, which impedes clarity slightly. For example, in the ‘Russian Ties’ portion of the article there is a period followed by several spaces, and then another period. I believe that same portion, and others, shy away from diving into the controversy. The issue with Russian ties goes far beyond Telegram simply following Russian law. This article (https://theoutline.com/post/2348/what-isn-t-telegram-saying-about-its-connections-to-the-kremlin), while not great for WikiMedia usage, summarizes what I am trying to say. I think it's best to explore a controversy as large as ‘Russian Ties’ as much as possible. The same is true for all other sub-headers.
OBJECTIVE REPORTING (NPOV) In this article, there is no evidence of the author stating their personal opinion. There is also no evidence of the author arguing for one side or against another in this article. Facts and controversies are discussed objectively. Russian ties, for example, simply expand on the platforms relationships and history with Russia and Russian officials. Countries who have banned telegram are said to have ‘banned Telegram due to their own anti-government protests in mid 2021.’ In conclusion, I think the author effectively portrays a neutral tone and does not attempt to convince the reader of any one point-of-view; facts are simply explored.
