The following discussion 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 cool thing about these guys is that- is that they have really, really, really long, um, trunks, and, that's- that's cool..."
TWOrantulaTM (
enter the web) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's almost 15 to 9 (8:45 PM) here, gonna go to sleep. Just ping me when you finish making your comments, I'll check my notis tmrw.
Davest3r08>:3(
talk) 00:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please ping me if you are done implementing my comments. I have to be somewhere. Thank you.
TWOrantulaTM (
enter the web) 17:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Whoops. I forgot I still had this review up. Anyway, passing...
TWOrantulaTM (
enter the web) 21:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Lead section is of adequate length. Layout is correct per
MOS:LAYOUT. Little words in the article that are on the WTW list are present. Fiction and list incorporation policies do not apply.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline.
Article has a reference section with no bare URLs. Citations are formatted correctly.
2b.
reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
I'm not sure how the video is listed under a CC-BY license (or where that even is), but the Wikimedia Commons page has an appropriate license, so I'm going to AGF and pass this criterion.
The full video is enough to provide visual context to the reader (obviously).
7. Overall assessment.
"...and that's pretty much all there is to say."
Initial comments
The reception section feels quite... empty. For the very first video on YouTube, I'm sure it has received more attention.
Bit curious today: Who's the voice that goes "bloop-bleep" at the start of the video? (you don't have to answer this)
Source #4 (Fox29 story; Weaver 2024) doesn't really add anything other than when the youtube.com domain was activated (IMO that isn't relevant to this specific article. That should belong in the history section for the Wikipedia article about YouTube.)
Not sure how source #8 (University of Delaware messenger) is reliable
What makes Digital Trends and Tubefilter reliable?
Dug these up for ya:
[1],
[2],
[3] (you could use the last source to cite info on Lapitsky instead of the university page)
Well done! Most of the sources here are reliable. :D
Is the PDT time relevant?
Copyvio check
Everything seems to be in order.
Earwig states that the top result is at a 44.1% similarity; however, the link is a mirror website.
Lead
"Me at the zoo" is the first video uploaded to YouTube, on April 23, 2005, 8:31:52 p.m. PDT, or April 24, 2005, at 03:31:52 UTC. -> "'Me at the zoo' is a YouTube video uploaded on April 23, 2005, at 3:31:52 UTC. It is the first video to be uploaded to the platform."
Using Karim's camera, it was recorded by his high school friend -> It was recorded on Karim's camera by his high school friend...
a University of Delaware Ph.D. student at the time, who was in San Diego to deliver his research to the American Chemical Society -> "...who was a University of Delaware Ph.D. (unlink Ph.D.) in San Diego delivering his research to the American Chemical Society."
Not sure why the alternate name for the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime controversy is needed here RemovedDavest3r08>:3(
talk) 16:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hm... Los Angeles Times quote could use some shortening...
"as the first video uploaded to YouTube, it played a pivotal role in fundamentally altering how people consumed media and helped usher in a golden era of the 60-second video" -> "Me at the zoo" "played a pivotal role" on how videos were watched. (IDK it's 10:27, and I want to go to sleep :c)
I tried to paraphrase part of the Digital Trends quote (tell me what you think)
Legacy
was not simply about
Good use of quotes, and this paragraph is really well-written!
"Paved the way for" is a little informal. Try using "led"?
Might want to introduce Greg Jarboe (what publication is he from?)
Same thing for Aaron Duplantier
original amateur content - Not sure what this phrase means. Does it mean content produced by random people who have no experience in filmmaking?
In addition to being the first video on YouTube, it has been described as the first YouTube vlog clip. -> "Being the first video on YouTube, it has also been described as the first YouTube vlog clip." - Follow-up question: What's a vlog clip?
ranked it as
"It is representative of YouTube—it doesn't need to be this fancy production; it can be approachable. The first YouTube video is something anyone could create on their own." - Two things. One: This could be trimmed down (see my next point). Two: This sounds like it could belong in the reception section, not legacy.
Trim quote (direct quotes in boldface): "...it was representative, being an example of home-made (I don't know what word to use there. I just need a word that means "naturally made" or "without extra work".) user-generated content." DoneDavest3r08>:3(
talk) 16:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"the thing is practically a historical artifact" -> ...it was "practically a historical artifact".
Shouldn't the importance ratings go in the reception section?
Not sure if the technical term for a description is "description feed" (usually I call it the "description")
Note: Reference numbers are of
this revision. I will check ten references at random.
Y #1
N #2 - Does not say about Karim's inspiration for creating YouTube
Y #4 - Not sure if adding the exact date would suffice, but source checks out.
Y #6
Y #9
Y #11 - Since I can't access the book itself, I'm gonna AGF and hope that the text is verifiable.
Y #12
Y #15
Y #16
Y #18
N #20 (bonus because why not) - Doesn't say the elephants are AI-generated
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.