Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/YouTube Awards/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

YouTube Awards edit

YouTube Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube Awards was an annual promotion that was run twice by YouTube. I have been working on this list for the last few months, and I hope that it now meets the FL criteria. If promoted, this would be, as far as I can tell, the first featured list about an awards ceremony recognising online content (the Appy Awards is probably be the nearest so far), so I hope that it sets some sort of a precedent. I have ignored one or two rules while writing the article, and I welcome any feedback about it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. I wouldn't characterize the awards as "annual" in the first sentence, considering they only occurred twice. Instead, I'd say they occurred twice, in 2007 and 2008.
    1.  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Fastest-growing" is one of those qualifiers that are always dubious – even when reliably sourced – because it can be defined in a number of ways and doesn't necessarily represent anything special except being new (relevant XKCD comic). I'd remove it entirely.
    1.  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A growth by 297 percent is a fourfold increase, not a threefold one.
    1. Oops, right you are.  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "As a result, in part, of its growth and success, in March 2007 YouTube launched [...]" is clunky.
    1. Rewritten slightly. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "a dedicated webpage" – this is enough; don't spell out the weblink (the same goes for the 2008 section).
    1.  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "Ben Fritz of Variety felt that this made the process "transparent"." – go with "said" and remove the WP:SCAREQUOTES.
    1.  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per WP:ELLIST, lists should not be composed of external links. I do see the value in having these links, but I'm not sure if this can be considered acceptable use of WP:External links (in general, not just as it pertains to WP:ELLIST). I'll leave that assessment to someone more experienced in these matters, but I do want to raise the issue.
    1. I thought this might come up. As you say, there's value to our readers in having the links in the artcle, and making the titles clickable seemed like the most intuitive an simple method to me. Besides, my thinking is that, if we have to choose between providing benefit to our readers and following a particular rule, we should always ignore the rule. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The times of day are unnecessary (and formatted inconsistently).
    1.  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Leave Britney Alone! redirects to Chris Crocker.
    1. Per WP:REDIRECT, linking to redirects is okay, since they can indicate possible future articles. I've removed it anyway. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The Reception section deals almost exclusively with the 2007 awards. Surely there's more to say about the reception to the 2008 awards than a single sentence?
    1. I couldn't find anymore info, but I'll have another look. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      1. I've had another look for commentary about the 2008 awards, but there just doesn't seem to be any outside of Caroline McCarthy's article. If this is a real sticking point for you, one solution might be to remove that sentence completely, then move the entire Reception section to become a subsection of the 2007 Awards section, like so. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        1. I think making it a subsection of the 2007 Awards section is an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          1. All right, I'll leave the layout like that and see what other reviewers have to say about it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I feel like information about why there were no 2009 awards is dearly missing.
    1. Again, I couldn't find anything (I think they were just quietly retired), but I'll do some more research. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      1. I have now added a couple of sentences about the retirement of the awards. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. In general, a lot of the prose is of the "person X said Y" variety. To my eye, it's in WP:QUOTEFARM territory.
    1. I'm happy to remove some of the quotations, but I wouldn't mind getting some more opinions about the prose first. To me, this amount of quotes is similar to what you might find in other featured content. For what it's worth, I've removed the quotation marks from some of the quote fragments. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I don't think the list passes WP:FLCR 3(a) for the reasons outlined in points 10 and 11, nor WP:FLCR 1 for the reasons outlined in point 12 (and others, but point 12 is the biggest problem right now). TompaDompa (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I personally think we can make an WP:IAR exception to WP:ELLIST, but I'm not comfortable with making that judgment call on my own, and would therefore like input on this from other reviewers (ideally ones who are experienced when it comes to WP:External links matters). TompaDompa (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me. I didn't even know these existed, but it's a good list.--Lirim | Talk 01:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "sometimes called the" perhaps "also known as"
  • ", almost four times over. " unnecessary, we can work %.
  • "was changing culture quickly and completely." probably needs quote marks, because it's blatantly untrue that it changed culture "completely".
  • "ten each to just six." -> "ten to six"
  • "was occurring so late " -> occurring -> taking place
  • Is it Ok Go or OkGo?
  • "OK Go" is the name of the band, but "OkGo" was the YouTube account name under which the video was uploaded. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by 297 percent, almost fourfold." again, we don't need the same fact twice.
  • "As a result of this growth and success, Y" don't assume people have read the previous section.
  • Table needs to be compliant with MOS:ACCESS, e.g. row and col scopes, captions etc.
  • Added col scopes and captions, but I'm really not sure where the row scopes would go. There are only two cells in each row, and neither of them is really the row heading or in anyway more significant than the other. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", calling it a good point" needless.
  • "which had occurred six months" taken place.
  • " described the awards as a quick, hasty process.[22]" the awards aren't a process.
  • That's the word he used, though ([2]). I've readded quotation marks, but I'll rewrite if necessary. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't link "blog" when you haven't already linked "blogger".
  • "In some categories, the winning videos had not been the favorites." is this somehow a revelation or a statement of life in general?
  • I guess I just wanted to summarise the main point of the forthcoming paragraph in a short sentence, in the same way that the Reception section in an article about a film might begin with, say, "Reception to the film was mixed". Willing to take it out if it doesn't work, though. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " beat out the famous footage " terribly tabloid.
  • Changed to "won against". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support conditional on the source review passing, this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

  • The formatting of the references looks fine.
  • What makes refs 33 and 34 reliable sources? Number 33 looks like a blog, while 34 appears to be somebody's personal website. All of the rest appear to be reliable enough.
  • Like Wumbolo mentions below, my thinking was that both Gannes and Dodge seem to be experts within the field, so citing their blog/personal website would be okay. Dodge's post on the awards was specifically referenced by Mashable. I'll remove if this doesn't work, though. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds like an acceptable explanation, especially since the cites are for their own opinions. I still wouldn't use those sites for verifying anything questionable, but for such viewpoints they should just pass muster. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the quote citing ref 47, since the punctuation appears inside the quotation mark in the source, it should be presented that way in the article per the Manual of Style. That was all I found worth mentioning in spot-checks of that cite and refs 14 and 19.
  • The link-checker tool shows no dead links. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Gigaom article's author works at Google, or shares the same first and last name as this woman affiliated with Google. I think that we should accept the article as written by an expert in the field, and it's not promotional because she joined Google much later than she worked at Gigaom. wumbolo ^^^ 22:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the source review, Giants! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the explanation and the fix, I'd say this source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting! --PresN 15:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/YouTube_Awards/archive1&oldid=867317000"