Talk:YouTube/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch:This review is transcluded from Talk:YouTube/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Note that as this article is semiprotected, it is inappropriate to review at this time. Which would you rather? Unprotect it and leave it for a week to make sure there are no controversies, or fail it and leave it protected? Jclemens (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a hard one; the moment you un(semi)protect the page, it's going to get vandalized based on what page it is, and eventually reprotected. I'd like to involve one or two of the primary editors in this decision. Either way, it should stay move-protected. I'm thinking that I'd like the process to go forward, so if nobody objects we should do that. Out of curiosity, where is that rule stated (that to promote a page it needs to be unprotected)? Is it an official GAN rule, and can there be exceptions? The Barack Obama article, for example, stays semiprotected during its numerous FA Reviews, and has had some form of protection on it since 2006. I only argue strongly for this because it is such a (potential) vandal target. Also note that none of the article's primary editors appear to be anonymous. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My general view is that WP:WIAGA criterion #5, stability, can only be demonstrated if the article in question is unprotected for at least one week with no substantial edit warring--vandalism reversion doesn't count, and it would be unfair to expect that. YouTube is a relatively important phenomenon, and seeking GA recognition is an admirable goal. In addition to asking other editors for input, I wouldn't mind seeking other GA reviewers' input on whether semi'ed vandalism-magnet articles can meet criterion 5 without being unprotected. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Per feedback on WT:GAN, reviewing despite semiprotection. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The semiprotection is nothing to do with edit warring. This is a high traffic article, and unprotection has in the past led to large amounts of timewasting edits from IPs (eg spam links).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

Good amount of material, good coverage. Plenty of room for prose improvement, one image is not currently acceptable, and a few direct quotes from the site itself remain unsourced.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Some awkward parts: "YouTube has been criticized frequently for failing to ensure that its online content adheres to the law of copyright." Note that civil lawsuits are filed, not issued. "Although YouTube's terms of service forbid the uploading of material likely to be considered inappropriate, the inability to check all videos before they go online means that occasional lapses are inevitable." Needs a cite and/or to be reworded so the editors aren't commenting on the reasonableness of YouTube's performance. Is "a member of staff" an employee? If so, say so. Way too many common words linked contra WP:OVERLINK; I've removed a few, but do "school" and "bullying" really need to be linked? "There are also third-party web sites, applications and browser plug-ins that offer a way to get a download link for all videos on the website." Awkward and wordy, as are a lot of similar sentences. The use of a copyeditor would probably be helpful on this score.

"...occasional lapses are inevitable" fixed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"a member of staff" fixed —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking seems to be fixed for the most part. A read-through seemed fairly reasonable to me. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"..third-party web sites..." fixed —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Need cite for copyright notice used as pull quote, and for length restrictions in video format section--primary sources are fine. While not essential for GA, it would improve the article if the citations could be upgraded to all use {{cite web}} or similar, instead of bare URLs.

Added a cite for the pull quote and for the length restrictions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I love me some citation templates. Done. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, missed the localization section. Working on it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The Localization section has a cool table, but what really does this change? How does localized content differ for users of that site? Are there IP-based restrictions?

Yes, there are IP restrictions. YouTube allocates the version depending on the IP address.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So make sure you don't just answer me here, but provide enough detail in the article to answer the "so what?" question a reader might have. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems to accurately and neutrally depict controversies. Good editing (see #1) will remove what little remains.

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   There have been a number of content and format changes in the past week. I'll reevaluate this next time I look at the article.

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   White house video (File:Youtubecompfull.png) is tagged as having bad info on commons. Please fix or replace. File:Guitar youtube.png needs FURs for the other articles that use it, but that's not a showstopper for this GA review.

As for the white house video, is this sufficient? I looked for the specific video but haven't been able to find it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be from a White House address by Barack Obama on his YouTube channel, and so would be PD, US Government.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd still like to find the specific video if possible. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the judge of commons content, though I do have an account there. If commons doesn't like the image, Wikipedia's rules are looser and allow properly-tagged fair use images. A FU image on Wikipedia that follows our policies is better than an image on commons that does not follow theirs. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I went and added the FURs for the other two articles that use File:Guitar youtube.png. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On Hold until 8/8, at which time it will be reevaluated and passed, failed, or the hold extended. Feel free to ping me on my talk page if these issues have been substantially addressed before then.

   Passed per improvements to date. Good job, folks. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have a look at these. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)