Talk:Bill Wurtz/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 05:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 03:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 04:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a religion out of this. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no, don't. :) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: It is done. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:46, 8 July 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.	Prose reads smoothly. No typos spotted.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section adequately summarizes article. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. Article is not overloaded with words from the WTW list. Fiction policy does not apply. Lists are correctly incorporated.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	A reference section is available for attribution of referenced sources.
	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).	Since the Mashable articles are about their niche, pop culture, they can be used as a reliable source. OK Whatever is written by experienced journalists, and several other reliable magazines and websites (e.g. Gizmodo, The Verge, Vice, Variety, HuffPost, MEL Magazine, Polygon, Billboard, and Scroll.in) are used, not to mention the scholarly journal!
	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.	According to the Earwig report, the top result is at a 31.5% similarity. However, that's a song list, and the rest of the results highlight small snippets of text from the source.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Wurtz's career and musical style contain a great amount of important information.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article does not go off topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article remains neutral. It does not try to form its own opinions for or against the artist.
	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 images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The Bill Wurtz profile picture and the History of the Entire World, I Guess thumbnail are in the public domain due to it being made up of simple shapes. The History of Japan thumbnail, however, is non-free; it has a valid non-free use rationale as well.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Wurtz's profile picture is relevant, as it provides a clear symbol of his YouTube channel/internet personality. The thumbnail for the external video box helps depict information that cannot be conveyed in words alone.
	7. Overall assessment.	Oh hi, thanks for checking in... 🎵I'm still a piece of garbage!🎵

Quickfail?[edit]

Y Article is stable.
Y Earwig isn't a problem.
Y First GA review; no previous mistakes to note.
Y No valid cleanup banners or citation needed tags spotted.
Y Nothing severe to note.

Few things to note[edit]

Mashable's a bit of an iffy source to use. Per WP:MASHABLE, some articles may be sponsored content. I wouldn't consider using the source when other, more reliable sources could just as easily provide similar information.
- Online pop culture is within the niche of Mashable, so the source should be fine for its reviews of online videos. None of the articles cited are labelled as sponsored.
Never heard of OK Whatever. Is it reliable, considering how often it's used in the article?
- I also had never heard of it before working on this article. It appears to be a reliable source, even if it has a "weird" niche. According to the website's about page, OK Whatever was led by a writer who has worked for SFGate and The Los Angeles Times, and it has won a Webby Award. So it should be a good secondary source about Wurtz's career, but I was cautious not to cite it about his personal life.
Prose is a little choppy in the "public image" section
- I tried rewriting it a bit and moved a sentence to the "Career" section. I think it's better now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk • contribs) 20:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Could have a sentence summary of his website
"animated video creator" -> "animator" or "music video creator"
- Done.
Distinctive what style?
- Rewritten to be more clear.
"which includes" -> "composed of"
- Text removed.
Cut "calm" (the word "deadpan" already implies that)
- Done.
Wurtz has published music and videos dating back to 2002. -> Wurtz has created music and videos since 2002.
- Done, but kept the word "published".
He proceeded to upload his videos on Vine, where he gained his initial popularity, and on YouTube. -> He uploaded his videos on Vine, where he gained popularity, and on YouTube.
- Done.
He experienced breakout success on YouTube with his animated videos, History of Japan (2016), and History of the Entire World, I Guess (2017), which both went viral and inspired internet memes. -> Two of his animated videos on YouTube, History of Japan (2016) and History of the Entire World, I Guess (2017), went viral and inspired internet memes.
- Done.
Follow-up point: Aren't video titles usually in quotes and not italicized?
- Perhaps, but MOS:TITLES doesn't specify, so I wasn't sure whether to change it.
  - The linked page considers videos, regardless of what medium they're released in, to be films. Therefore, they can be italicized.

Career[edit]

first song with vocals
- Done.
He released songs more frequently beginning in 2010. -> "In 2010, he began to release songs more frequently."
- Changed phrasing.
Cut "for his presence"
- Done.
where he ~~first~~ gained a following
- Done.
He began by taking short videos he had previously published to his website and re-editing them to fit Vine's six-second restriction. -> "He took his short videos he had previously published to his website and shortened them to fit Vine's six-second restriction."
- Changed phrasing.
"Before transitioning fully to YouTube" -> "Before fully moving to YouTube"
- Changed phrasing.
Would prefer if "In 2015" was first in the sentence
- Done.
At the awards ceremony, his acceptance speech consisted of the words "Thank you." - Don't really find this relevant (it's just a speech in my opinion, even if it's curt)
- I think it's worth including, since it's mentioned in a source about him, and it mentions his appearance at the ceremony rather than just the fact that he won the award.
- Also, I've added a second citation to show there's more coverage.
I assume January 16, 2016, was the last time Wurtz ever posted on Vine. Should that be mentioned?
- I don't think it's relevant, as no secondary sources mention the event of him leaving Vine.
on the advice of a friend to post content that was previously exclusive to his website. -> "...after a friend advised him to post content that was previously exclusive to his website."
- Done.
Two things for the "History of Japan" external videos box:
- One: Shouldn't it have a thumbnail like the one below it?
  - Added fair use media.
  - Just reminding you to update your review comment for criterion 6a to say that there's a fair use image.
- Two: Shouldn't we directly link to the YouTube video itself?
  - Makes sense. Done.
Didn't someone suggest him to make a video on the history of Japan?
- If that's true, I don't think it's important enough to include, unless you can find a secondary source.
It received considerable attention on Tumblr[3] and Reddit.[9] - Suggest putting both citations at the end of the sentence.
- Done.
Well-written section.
- Thanks.
~~spanning~~ from
- Done.
it became the most upvoted YouTube link - Couldn't we say "YouTube video"?
- "YouTube link" is the phrase used by the source, so I'll keep it.
"and was listed at eighth place" -> "and listed eighth"
- Not done, I think this phrasing sounds more natural.
Could merge the Post-History of the Entire World section
- I think it's better as two paragraphs, as the first paragraph focuses on YouTube videos.
Link absurdist humor?
- Done.
In 2018, Wurtz appeared on the H3 Podcast, his first significant interview. - Does this imply he had other interviews before this?
- The source describes it as "his first substantial interview". I changed the phrasing to "major" (as I guess there could hypothetically be an unknown one from ages ago).
Try a better word for "spawned"
- Done.

Style[edit]

~~The link for "absurdist" should be earlier~~
but it's not weird for weirdness' sake alone - Cut?
- I don't think I should cut it. I think the quote from the source describes how Wurtz's art is known as "weird", which is relevant.
Wurtz often follows patterns in his videos such as multi-layering, and clip art images. -> "In his videos, Wurtz often uses clip art images and multi-layering." (not sure if "multi-layering" is the correct term)
- Since "multi-layering" is cited only to an interview, I've removed the word and combined "clip art images" with the previous sentence.
and evolved naturally - ???
- Seems like a very rough paraphrase from the interview, so replaced with a direct quote. It might make sense to remove the sentence, but I'll leave it here unless someone disagrees.
"despite admitting" - Feel like this should be reworded in some way, but I'll keep it the same for now
- Rephrased and removed the word "enormous".
streams on music streaming services - "plays"?
- Sure.
promote ~~any of~~
- Done.
a devoted fanbase - Might be untrue (the article solely mentioning a subreddit doesn't really show me)
- The source described it like: "It’s a specific aesthetic—one that inspires devotion." I've changed the wording in the article to "online following", which might work better.
To save time, I've copyedited the article myself.

Website[edit]

Quote frame could better indicate who's answering the question (I tried doing it myself; not sure if that works)
- I've attributed it at the bottom of the quote box, and kept the original formatting of the quote itself.

Discography[edit]

I feel like the lists could be replaced with {{Track listing}}, but I don't think that's gonna help make the section look cleaner.
- Changed to table. I also think I could consider removing his songs that don't have videos, since they're less notable, but I've kept it like this because other articles list the artists' entire discographies.
Come to think of it, why isn't there any recent history in this article?
- Sources are lacking, unfortunately. The only broad overviews of his career are the articles from MEL Magazine and OK Whatever, which are dated. His more recent work is only mentioned sporadically, and mostly by independent reviewers that probably don't pass WP:RS. If you found any RSes about his work since 2019, I'd be pleasantly surprised.

Spotchecking[edit]

Seven sources. This revision. Go!
#3 Y Y Y
#6 Y
#9 N (doesn't mention that it was popular on Vine) Y
- Changed the source for the Vine statement to MEL, and rephrased it to match the source.
#13 N (couldn't find any mention of Bill Wurtz or History of Japan anywhere on the page, do I have to download the PDF? if so, may you quote the text itself?)
- You should be able to download the PDF for free. The relevant quote is:
  "The video quickly went viral [...] and users on several social media sites began using quotes and images from the video in unrelated conversations. Noteworthy for its lack of any one single visual or verbal script to be remixed as most memes have, 'history of japan' became a flexible and relatively long-lived meme. One snippet of the video that lent itself very easily to use in various kinds of political talk was the phrase 'knock knock. it’s the United States.' [...]"
#22 Y
#25 Y N (technically says he is an absurdist YouTuber, rather than saying he has developed an absurdist style) Y
- Rephrased.
#29 N URL is inaccessible.
- The archive.org link is working. But I added another source anyway.

Ehh, why not[edit]

Since I have way too much free time on my hands, late nights don't count I'll be checking a commonly cited source.
- Thanks for putting in the work!
#8A: Y
#8B: Y
#8C: Y
#8D: Y
#8E: Y
#8F: Y
#8G: Y
#8H: Y
#8I: Y
#8J: Y
#8K: Y
#8L: Y
#8M: Y
#8N: Y
#8O: Y
#8P: Y
#8Q: Y - The actual quote is "verge on poetic", but you're not that far off.

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.