A person who studies how companies do their work (called an analyst) changed his mind about a company called Cloudflare. He used to think it was not doing well, but now he thinks it is doing better and will make more money. So he told other people to buy more of the company's stock because he believes it will be worth more in the future. Read from source...

- The article does not provide any clear evidence or reasoning for why the Cloudflare analyst changed their outlook from bearish to bullish. It seems like a baseless claim that lacks any logical support.
- The article mentions "top Wall Street analysts" but does not name them or cite their sources, making it unclear who these experts are and what credentials they have. This creates a vague and untrustworthy impression for the readers.
- The article focuses too much on rating changes rather than actual performance, growth, or valuation of the companies mentioned. Ratings are subjective and can change based on many factors, but they do not necessarily reflect the true value or potential of a stock. A more informative approach would be to compare the key metrics of each company, such as revenue, earnings, market share, customer base, etc., and explain how they contribute to the business success.
- The article uses emotional language, such as "bearish" and "upgrades", to manipulate the readers' feelings and emotions, rather than providing objective and factual information. This is a common tactic used by sensationalist journalism to capture attention and drive engagement, but it does not serve the interests of informed decision making or investor education.
- The article has a poor structure and organization, with sentences that are too long, confusing, and hard to follow. It also lacks any visual elements, such as charts, graphs, or tables, that could help illustrate the data and analysis more effectively. A well-written article should be clear, concise, and coherent, with a logical flow of ideas and arguments.