Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/YouTube Awards/archive1


 * 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).

YouTube Awards

 * Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 11:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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 &#124; contribs) 11:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * Belated thanks! A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support from me. I didn't even know these existed, but it's a good list.-- Lirim  |  Talk  01:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support this nomination. Can't see any issue here. Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support! A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support conditional on the source review passing, this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

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 &#124; contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.
 * Done. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The link-checker tool shows no dead links. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. w umbolo   ^^^  22:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the source review, Giants! A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * With the explanation and the fix, I'd say this source review has been passed. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 23:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Promoting! -- Pres N  15:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.