Talk:YouTube Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator:

Reviewer: 49p (talk · contribs) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 is what I did already. 49p (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cite "The Hood Internet," producers, director somewhere for the infobox. There's no citations for these ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Put citations on these names to make sure that the usage is popular or official ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Put citations on these names to make sure that the usage is popular or official ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Overview
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
 * 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. ✅  Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * That's probably the main concerns of the section, it just needs to be restructured.
 * (remove unnecessary words)
 * (remove unnecessary words)
 * (remove unnecessary words)
 * (remove unnecessary words)
 * (remove unnecessary words)
 * (remove unnecessary words)
 * (remove unnecessary words)

Cast
Not a long section and not much to do.
 * ✔️? Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Reception

 * A non-free screenshot from the video could be helpful to demonstrate a point. Not needed, but just a recommendation. ❌ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. ❌ Couldn't find any other sources mentioning this  Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That also means merge the first two paragraphs into one as the second is now short when the sentence is removed. ✅  Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That also means merge the first two paragraphs into one as the second is now short when the sentence is removed. ✅  Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That also means merge the first two paragraphs into one as the second is now short when the sentence is removed. ✅  Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That also means merge the first two paragraphs into one as the second is now short when the sentence is removed. ✅  Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Excellent quote (including the business insider) and wikilink however.
 * Excellent PewDiePie quote, consider using a secondary source to quote it however.
 * Excellent quote (including the business insider) and wikilink however.
 * Excellent PewDiePie quote, consider using a secondary source to quote it however.
 * Excellent PewDiePie quote, consider using a secondary source to quote it however.
 * Excellent PewDiePie quote, consider using a secondary source to quote it however.
 * Excellent PewDiePie quote, consider using a secondary source to quote it however.
 * Excellent PewDiePie quote, consider using a secondary source to quote it however.
 * Excellent PewDiePie quote, consider using a secondary source to quote it however.

Dislikes

 * ✅ Davest3r08 > : )  (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Change

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. ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some issues with copyvio
 * You can probably use a better source than India Today. Consider removing it or replacing it. ❌ 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)
 * Got it, looked sketchy to me at first glance but it should be fine. 49p (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Overall, source looks good other than those last two issues.
 * ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Overall, source looks good other than those last two issues.

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)
 * 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)
 * All good. Take your time 49p (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Everything looks good. ✅ 49p (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)