Talk:The StoryGraph

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Removing promotional content

I've removed many quasi-promotional elements of the text. In the future, the article should be edited more carefully. It appears the site has been recieving a lot of media attention and promotion in the recent times, which has to be treated critically. A few things to note:

Goodreads does have a "did not finish" option, but it is obscure to set up so the Storygraph reviewers were probably unaware of it. I removed the mention of the option as one of the advantages of SG over GR.

The remarks regarding SG as an "alternative to Amazon's Goodreads" should be toned down to a reasonable level. It's a relevant part of the site's mission, but it's still only an another privately-owned book cataloguing site, not a revolutionary movement against Amazon and capitalism.

The "Social impact" section had nothing to do with actual social impact. It describes the site as a success of one POC woman, which is for now a private, not social success. It is also beyond odd to claim GR is male-dominated, because its founders were a man and a woman and the current manager appears to be a woman. But regardless of that we have too little specific data on who works on the site, and should refrain from assumptions. I have removed the section entirely.

— Phazd (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]