Talk:Me at the zoo/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator:

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...The cool thing about these guys is that- is that they have really, really, really long, um, trunks, and, that's- that's cool..." TWOrantula^TM (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.

talk) 00:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Davest3r08: I have finished your review. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Please ping me if you are done implementing my comments. I have to be somewhere. Thank you. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 17:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I forgot I still had this review up. Anyway, passing... TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 21:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article reads smoothly. I corrected a minor typo, but that was the only mistake I found. Technical terms have been clarified.
	1b. it complies with the list incorporation .	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.
2. source spot-check :
	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).	Most sources used are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotchecking proves there is text-source integrity and therefore no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The top result, according to the Earwig report, is a mirror website. Quotes could use some trimming, though.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The reception section is quite sparse for a video I consider significant to YouTube's history. Content was misplaced. Criterion passed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused and stays on topic without going into unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral. No biases spotted.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as audio :
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions .	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."
• Why is mentioning the view count important?
• Reception should be briefly mentioned in lead

Background

• I'd recommend linking "former employees at PayPal" together to
  talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Paypal: Chad Hurley...  Done
  talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Unlink "design"  Done
  talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Add comma between "Pennsylvania" and "and"  Done
  talk) 16:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Unlink "computer science"  Done
  talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Surprised
  talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Not sure why the alternate name for the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime controversy is needed here
  talk) 16:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Link
  talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Link
  talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 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."  Done
  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")
• "more detailed" -> "longer"
• Link Artificial intelligence art to "AI-generated"?

Spotchecking

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