Can we change the line, "...claiming that the video should be about "the people who managed to do something bigger then themselves"", to "...claiming that the video should be about "the people who managed to do something bigger than themselves""? The Grammar appears to be poor. HappenedAnd88 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Already done – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 23:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we include a short segment on JaidenAnimations in the "Reception" section? Primarily on her sneaking PewDiePie's chair into the video and the increasing awareness and popularity towards her as a result? Willbo Waggins (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Willbo Waggins: I think that would be appropriate, since there are some sources about that ([1] [2]). Since you're not autoconfirmed yet, if you use {{Edit protected}} on this page then you can make an edit request to insert a sentence or two into the article; or alternatively, you can wait a few days and make six more edits to modify the article yourself. Jc86035 (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Willbo Waggins: Wow, I was thinking of the exact same thing as well! What a coincidence! 80.44.78.228 (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pewdiepie made a rewind video which, less than a day after release, surpassed Youtube Rewind's like count, to further ridicule it.
Rickfernello (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure including such an extended cast list what WP:WIKIIS. If you compare it to elements such as the cast list over at The Two Towers, you will see it is overly expansive and insufficiently detailed. If there are no objections, I would like to delete every non-blue linked line item, and hopefully someone more interested in this topic can come along and resolve the other issues in the list?
NoCOBOL (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This review is transcluded from Talk:YouTube Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Davest3r08 (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: 49p (talk · contribs) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be my first ever GA Review, so I'm picking a relatively easy one. I will be doing this over the weekend. 49p (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finished most of the review. It's not bad but majority of the issues was the plot summary. Some minor prose issues here and there but overall nice job! Check out of the changes I suggested or that need to be added. Anything in green is what I did already. 49p (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be scared about the red ticks, there some issues that need to be fixed to be GA. It might seem long but really it just some glaring issues and how to approach them. (and some of these like WP:RS are easy fixs) I'm doing this late so some of these sentences probably dont make sense so you can reply if you have any issues.49p (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead and infobox
- The video was criticized for featuring obscure or unpopular YouTubers. I do not see this cited anywhere in the Reception section. Consider removing this or adding a citation. Done Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- De-wikilink Youtube on the last paragraph, already used
- Cite "The Hood Internet," producers, director somewhere for the infobox. There's no citations for these Done Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it Everyone Controls Rewind or YouTube Rewind 2018? You use Youtube Rewind 2018 in the lead, but Everyone Controls Rewind in the Reception. Use one of these and stick to it. Done Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Put citations on these names to make sure that the usage is popular or official Done Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overview
- Couple problems with the sections.
- "The video is themed around everyone being able to control YouTube Rewind, with various featured personalities describing what events they want to review." I would recommend explaining what YouTube rewind before the overview. This article's section assumes that the readers know about Youtube Rewind. You don't need a big introduction explaining it, but I believe a background section would be preferable. See 300-page iPhone bill and $456,000 Squid Game in Real Life!'s background section for what I intend to see. Done Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your quoting the video itself for the overall plot. I don't think there's anything wrong about this, but try to use outside sources to quote the overall story. Kept- The plot summary has some paragraph that are more detailed than it needs to be. To my knowledge, there's no wikiproject for YouTube videos that explains how detailed a plot summary should be, and ~500 words isn't that bad for a summary (per WP:FILM). But I believe you can cut out some sentence that describes scenes that are not that influential to the overall video (see WP:PLOTSUMNOT)). Not a whole lot, but you can remove some words.
- Take, for example, this paragraph:
...The video begins with actor Will Smith on Jebel Jais's mountain range suggesting the inclusion of popular video game Fortnite and YouTuber Marques Brownlee if he could control rewind in the video. The camera then cuts to Brownlee, other YouTubers and Twitch streamer Ninja, as the bus driver, conversing inside a battle bus, a Fortnite reference. "I Like It" by rapper Cardi B is played on the radio during the scene as well.
I believe this is perfect for explaining that scene. It's not too long into detail but explains the minute-long scene. However, the next couple of paragraph has this scene. The video then cuts back to the campfire, as one YouTuber proposes a reference to the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, but comedian Michael Dapaah establishes that the internet meme 'Bongo Cat' will be the groom. Following the wedding scene, Safiya Nygaard suggests a science experiment involving melting lipstick. Another then suggests the inclusion of electronic musician Marshmello, whose mask is removed, revealing Mason Ramsey underneath. The video then cuts to a group doing a mukbang in Korea.
That's way too detailed for a short scene. You don't need to include each order of the scene. Perhaps the paragraph should be more like The group at the campfire also suggests that the rewind should have references to the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the internet meme 'Bongo Cat,' a science experiment involving melting lipstick, and the inclusion of electronic musician Marshmello, whose mask is removed and revealed to be Mason Ramsey underneath. The video then cuts to a group doing a mukbang in Korea
I didn't cut a lot of words, but it's much more straight to the point. We don't need to know each exact detail in the scene, but the general idea of what was happening in that scene. You also said "...as one YouTuber proposes..." in the original paragraph, which should probably be changed to the exact Youtuber if you were to keep the original (not going to lie, I don't even know who she is). - That's probably the main concerns of the section, it just needs to be restructured.
Now these suggestions are just minor prose issues. I will be doing this again when you fix the above issues as the prose of it will change
- Change "inclusion of popular video game Fortnite" to "inclusion of the popular video game Fortnite"
- Change "The camera then cuts to Brownlee, other YouTubers and Twitch streamer Ninja" to "The camera then cuts to Brownlee, other YouTubers, and Twitch streamer Ninja" (note the comma)
- Change "Eventually, the scene shifts back to the campfire, when animator TheOdd1sOut suggests the inclusion of the "In My Feelings" challenge. " to "Eventually, the scene shifts back to the campfire, where animator TheOdd1sOut suggests adding the "In My Feelings" challenge to the video."
- Change "The video rapidly cuts between scenes of various YouTubers and celebrities dancing to Drake's song of the same name" to "The video rapidly cuts between scenes of various YouTubers and celebrities dancing to the challenge" (you already talked about the challenge in the previous sentence, no need to reiterate it. Also, the song has been wikilinked twice in this paragraph)
- Consider also rephrasing "Here, animator Jaiden Animations included several easter eggs, comprising references to other memes and events of the year, such as Ugandan Knuckles, an invitation to Super Smash Bros. Ultimate and the KSI vs. Logan Paul boxing match, a group of items on the wall that spell out "Sub 2 PewDiePie", as well as PewDiePie's swivel chair." It seems a bit awkward how it's phrased. Maybe removing the adverb? (although the detail is small, it is referred in reception so I guess this information can stay)
- Remove ref 5 (Twitter) as it just shows the animation in full length. I was going to say oppose ref 4, but I think it's useful with its context. Consider using a outside source that isn't YouTube if you could for this part however.
- Change "The video once again cuts back to the group sitting around the campfire, with Lilly Singh claiming that the video should feature "the people who managed to do something bigger than themselves." to "The video cuts back to the group sitting around the campfire, with Lilly Singh claiming the video should feature "the people who managed to do something bigger than themselves." (remove unnecessary words)
- Change "Afterwards, Elle Mills decides to read a faux comments section for further suggestions on what to feature in the Rewind" to "Afterward, Elle Mills decides to read a faux comments section for further suggestions on what to feature in the Rewind"
- Consider moving this down to the next paragraph to talk about the comments, as the next one explains the comment section.
- Change "Various comments are featured, leading to the inclusion of more pop culture moments that took place over the past year. Some (including actress Lele Pons) take part in a fashion show, wearing the costumes featured in Kanye West and Lil Pump's "I Love It" music video, followed by references to the 2018 FIFA World Cup and the Dame Tu Cosita dance craze" to "Various comments are featured, featuring pop culture references to Lele Pons wearing the costumes featured in Kanye West and Lil Pump's "I Love It" music video, followed by references to the 2018 FIFA World Cup and the Dame Tu Cosita dance craze." (flows better, "inclusion of" makes it unclear and wordy)
- Change "The 'Sister Squad' (James Charles, Dolan Twins and Emma Chamberlain)" to "The 'Sister Squad' (James Charles, Dolan Twins, and Emma Chamberlain)" (note the comma)
- Add somewhere about Baby Shark to be one of the references from the comment sections. Seems pretty big to me.
Cast
Not a long section and not much to do.
- Move the references from Yes Theory to the sentence that states "Below is a list of starring cast members in YouTube Rewind 2018, derived from the video's description." Already done? Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you getting the information for "Debut in YouTube Rewind" and "Animation only?" I guess animation only might be a bit obvious but I believe those two need sources. Done Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider using "https://2018.rewind.youtube/creators" for a citation and source of artists than using the actual youtube link. Done Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
- Replaced image with a newer version of PewDiePie
- A non-free screenshot from the video could be helpful to demonstrate a point. Not needed, but just a recommendation. Not done Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon its release, Everyone Controls Rewind received universally negative reviews, receiving extensive backlash from critics, YouTubers and viewers alike. Many YouTubers deemed it the "worst Rewind ever", although the video received some praise for its display of YouTube animators. The source, The Indian Express, is good (per WP:INDIANEXP). I recommend adding more citations of those that say fans declared it "the the worse ever." to support it. Not done Couldn't find any other sources mentioning this Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nowhere in the source (The Indian Express) does it claim that "display of YouTube animators" were praised. Is this stated on another source? Either add a citation to the claim, or remove it.
- Did you mean to add ref 20 (news18)?
- Consider changing "critics, YouTubers and viewers" to "critics, YouTubers, and viewers."
- Consider changing "Other criticisms included what viewers had seen as the video's overuse of some trends, many of which were classified as outdated or unpopular, including Fortnite, as well as the lack of variety in references." to "Other criticisms included what viewers had seen as the video's overuse of some trends, many of them being outdated or unpopular, including Fortnite, as well as the lack of variety in references." (classified seems a bit wordy in this case, also this uses passive voice. Feel free to challenge this however)
- You talk about PewDiePie in this paragraph not being added which angered fans. You also have another paragraph about PewDiePie statement of not being added. Considering moving the sentence ("Many people were also angered with PewDiePie not being included, as his channel was the most-subscribed on the platform at the time.") to be at the start of the paragraph about his statement to make it flow better. Done Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That also means merge the first two paragraphs into one as the second is now short when the sentence is removed. Done Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider changing "Everyone Controls Rewind incorporated user comment suggestions as a part of the video, although many viewers stated that the trends which the video included were unpopular with the majority of the community, calling YouTube "out of touch" with its viewers and their interests." to "While Everyone Controls Rewind incorporated user comment suggestions as a part of the video, many viewers stated that the trends were unpopular, calling YouTube "out of touch" with its viewers and their interests." It's a better lead-in to the paragraph in my fair opinion by making the paragraph stronger. It also reduces some redundancy. Not required, but my thought.
- Change "2 years" to "two years" (MOS:FIGURE)
- Split this sentence into two. Julia Alexander of The Verge suggested that YouTube had intentionally left out the biggest moments on the platform in 2018 from the video in an attempt to appease concerned advertisers over controversies that had plagued the platform over the past 2 years, saying "it's increasingly apparent, however, that YouTube is trying to sell a culture that's different from the one millions of people come to the platform for, and that's getting harder for both creators and fans to swallow". It's too long and makes it harder to read.
- Excellent quote (including the business insider) and wikilink however.
- Change to "PewDiePie, who was not included in Everyone Controls Rewind, criticized the video, stating:" "PewDiePie, who was not in Everyone Controls Rewind, criticized the video. He stated:" (Better flow by breaking up the sentences. Feel free to challenge this)
- Change "7 million likes" to "seven million likes"
- Change "2 days" to "two days"
- PewDiePie, who was not included in Everyone Controls Rewind, criticized the video, stating: "I'm almost glad I'm not in it. The reason why is because it's such a cringey video at this point which I think is quite a shame honestly. adding that "Rewind [used to be] something that seemed like an homage to the creators that year, it was something cool to be a part of". Incompletely quote/sentence in the bolded part?
- Excellent PewDiePie quote, consider using a secondary source to quote it however.
- Paragraph with the quote by Brownlee is excellent.
- "Only a few portions of the video received praise, with many viewers applauding Jaiden Animations for incorporating PewDiePie's chair, as well as other easter eggs, into her segment of the video." This part is OK, but consider merging it to the first paragraph where the video "received some praise" as the paragraph is short.
Dislikes
- Change "On December 13, 2018, just a week after it was uploaded" to "On December 13, 2018, just a week after being uploaded" Done Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Change "the most-disliked video in the history of the website" to "the most-disliked video on the website"
- Add a citation to After the release of the video and subsequent backlash, YouTube discussed possible options to prevent abuse of the dislike button by "dislike mobs", such as making the like–dislike ratings invisible by default, prompting disliking users to explain their dislike, removing the dislike count or the dislike button entirely.. I know you cite it later in the next sentence, but this should be cited as well.
- Remove the comma on "uploader" in "In November 2021, dislike counts became viewable only by a video's uploader, in an attempt to" It's not needed
Source Check
- Quick glance, but I don't see any sources that could be classified as "banned" or "bad."
- Please wikilink the publishers however. For instance, "The Verge" and "CNBC" should be linked to their pages. Done Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Some issues with copyvio
- We can ignore the first one, that just because we have a similar list of casts.
- Now, in this wikipedia article, you do quote it correctly in the correct way. But I recommend to paraphrase the quote from Andrea Faville to lower the scores.
You can probably use a better source than India Today. Consider removing it or replacing it. Not done 1. India Today is reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. 2. I cited it because it was the only reliable source I found that uses the full quote. Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Got it, looked sketchy to me at first glance but it should be fine. 49p (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Try not to use Metro as a source. (WP:METRO) It's not a big issue on this article but I would recommend to swap or remove Done Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall, source looks good other than those last two issues.
@Davest3r08: How's the progress going? I saw some progress but we are missing some glaring problem with content. Namely, the background section missing (see first bulletpoint with Couple problems with the sections), some uncited information in the lead and infobox, and some misc info in the reception. I trimmed the plot summary for you and removed other bulletpoints not really needed to be done. I think if you can these done soon then this can be passed.49p (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 49p, sorry if everything's going slow, I was busy with another GAN. Will finish everything by tommorow. — Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All good. Take your time 49p (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything looks good. ✓ Pass 49p (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 15:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(
- Comment or view
- Article history
)
Improved to Good Article status by
Davest3r08 (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes
will be logged on the talk page; consider
watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I am not reviewing this but I believe that this nomination should be failed as a QPQ is not done at nomination time. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @OlifanofmrTennant: Ideally, a QPQ is done within the prescribed period of one week from the date of nomination, but WP:QPQ says it can be done before or after nomination as long as it's linked to its nom page and nominator has been duly informed that QPQ is needed upon a full review. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't use ALT1 for BLP reasons. Might I suggest a hook relating to it being the most disliked video of all time?--Launchballer 14:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ALT2: ... that within a week of upload, YouTube Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind had become the platform's most-disliked video of all time?--Launchballer 15:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That works. Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Full review needed.--Launchballer 16:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the oldest fully unreviewed nom and I need a QPQ, so I'm reviewing. Long enough, new enough. No maintenance templates found, no neutrality concerns. Both QPQs done, you don't need three. WP:RSP whinges about WP:BUSINESSINSIDER, but given that it's only used for attributed opinion I'm happy with it, and Earwig whinges about [3], but that appears to be raw data so I have no complaints with it. I don't find ALT0 interesting, as companies place adverts all the time, and there's nothing in the hook that suggests the video's panegyry was unintentional; new reviewer needed to verify my ALT.--Launchballer 14:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just giving this a quick approval as ALT2 is verified in the NYT source. Other options are explicitly rejected and have been struck. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already done – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 23:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Done Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Already done? Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Full review needed.--Launchballer 16:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Just giving this a quick approval as ALT2 is verified in the NYT source. Other options are explicitly rejected and have been struck. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)