Wikipedia:Peer review/Etika/archive1

Etika

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I request a review of this article before I nominate it for

Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comment - In my opinion, the most pertinent criteria I mainly worry about is the sourcing. Although most of the sources used are high-quality reliable ones, per

WP:IAR

for the article, but I can explain why I and other editors used a particular source in context. That being said, I already anticipate FAC reviewers questioning the use of some of the gaming/internet sources. However, considering the article's scope - a gaming personality - I feel they should be suitable enough.

Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - courtesy pinging @HappyBoi3892, Vaticidalprophet, Couruu, Masem, and Z1720: it's been a month and there still hasn't been any feedback. I know it's a long read especially with the subject material. But I would still genuinely appreciate it if anyone could find any concerns needed to be addressed before FAC. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

mentor, who can comment in this PR. Z1720 (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Z1720: Thanks for your suggestion. I posted already on the YouTube WikiProject, but I'll post later today for an FAC mentor. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Some quick drive-by comments based on reading just the lead. Some may also apply to the rest of the article.

• The lead seems a little long in proportion to the article.
• IMO the lead should be two or three paragraphs, not four.
• The third paragraph seems to give undue detail. It could be summarised in a sentence or two. The final paragraph also seems a little over detailed.
• Use {{circa}}, not c.
• In several places in the lead the language needs tightening up. Eg:

• "He garnered popularity following the release of Super Smash Bros. 4, with such a rise in prevalence". "He garnered popularity" and "a rise in prevalence" are saying the same thing.
• "Between late 2018 and 2019". There is no period "between" these two dates.
• "Amofah's death was met with expressions of both shock and grief by fans and fellow YouTubers alike". Delete both "both" and "alike".

• "with many citing his case as an example of the indifference typically expressed towards mental health – many observers have commented that the signs of Amofah's mental deterioration were either downplayed or ignored prior to his suicide." Is "with many citing his case as an example of the indifference typically expressed towards mental health" not just a summary of "many observers have commented that the signs of Amofah's mental deterioration were either downplayed or ignored prior to his suicide."?
• "Several memorials and murals were set up around New York City". Can a mural be "set up"?
• "New York City, U.S.". Consider deleting "U.S.", as I suspect New York City does not need disambiguating.
• As you have not previously had an FAC nomination, consider closely following the course of several through the process. This is a good way of pickling up tips and tricks to ease the passage of your nomination. An even better way is to also review several of them.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild - Hey, sorry for the wait, but I'll work on implementing your suggestions tomorrow. Also, thank you for your suggestions. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

MOS:LEADLENGTH

does suggest four paragraphs at max, and I believe the article's long enough to justify it (I do plan to expand a bit more). Each paragraph was meant to summarize the article as so:

• P1: Intro Lead
• P2: Career + Content
• P3: Channel terminations + Behavior
• P4: Disappearance, death and legacy

I figured trimming too much would omit crucial aspects of the page, especially given the nature of his life and the subject material. However, I'm also considering merging the first two paragraphs as a compromise. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm still interested in receiving feedback for the article. I was planning on nominating it on the last day of January so I'd appreciate if anyone can leave more comments. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final Reply - Unfortunately with the way this peer review has gone, it's looking like FA status will have to wait. I wanted to nominate today but after two weeks since my last reply there hasn't been any feedback, to the point where I don't feel comfortable nominating this. Unless anyone decides to leave feedback between now and Saturday the 3rd, I would like to request an archival of this peer review. I apologize to anyone who wanted to see this article reach the status, but the inactivity has left me apprehensive about continuing further. I'll still work on the article this year along other editors, but will have to adjust my plans. Final ping to @Z1720, Gog the Mild, Vaticidalprophet, and HappyBoi3892: any last minute comments? If not, I'd like to request archival. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Skyshifter

@PantheonRadiance: I've read the article and, at least in my view, I think it could be nominated to FAC easily. It is in a very good shape already and it would be very nice to see a YouTuber FA, especially Etika. I think you should go for it. Skyshiftertalk 00:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyshifter: Thank you, I genuinely appreciate it. I may consider a nomination in a couple days if any more feedback arises, but I'd still like more reassurance that it could pass FAC. Namely, making sure there's enough activity and support, and it passes in a timely manner so it could go on the front page for his birthday. If you'd also like to help in anyway, I'd also appreciate that. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source ‡ 8 shouldn't be used. The account is not Etika's official one, just one by a fan (even if the video is Etika himself talking). You should try to find the original clip in Etika's official channels and use that instead. Skyshiftertalk 20:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found the original video, but I think I should mention that since his YouTube channels were banned, the only clips that exist of him are reuploads. As a result, what would have been acceptable SPSs now goes into

WP:RSPYT territory. IMO, I feel some IAR leeway should apply to him, but I'm unsure if FA reviewers would feel the same way. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think FA reviewers would accept reuploads. It might be best to remove the information in that case. Skyshiftertalk 00:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to the other sources that uses reuploads (I hadn't noticed the first time). Skyshiftertalk 00:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been trying to look for other sources that could replace such info but came up empty. I'm actually considering asking on RSN and/or the FA talk page about this situation later today, and whether they could still work as

primary SPSs. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 22:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Davest3r08 Good call. I want to see if I can find a few more high-quality sources first, but I'll request by next week. Also two last things. First, depending on how the week goes, I want to nominate to FA on 2/26. And second, on the off chance the process takes longer than expected, ideally I hope it can go on the front page on 6/19-6/25 - around the 5th year anniversary of his passing. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright, unless any more comments arrive, I would like to archive this tomorrow (3/1, midnight PST) so I can nominate for FA this weekend (3/3). My apologies for the delays. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]