Wikipedia:Peer review/YouTube/archive1

YouTube

This page looks like it's close to being a FA. Giving it a PR to see if there is anything eles needs doing. The main issue is that it's a bit unstable. Buc 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bcasterline

My thoughts:

Google's purchase of the company, which appears in both paragraphs, seems to take a disproportionate amount of space in the intro. Some other issues are left out, so it doesn't conform to WP:LEAD.
"...YouTube presented three agreements with media companies..." What does that mean exactly?
"However, the real cutoff is 10:58." needs attribution to avoid WP:OR.
The end of "Media recognition" begins to sound like a list. Much of the subsection is also redundant with "Copyright infringement" (under "Recent events") below.
"Press Coverage" and "Revenue model" are stubby. It's not clear why they deserve their own subsections.
"Recent events" also has a number of stubby subsections. I think it could be reorganized without too much trouble to avoid them -- "Banning" probably doesn't need subsections, for example, and a lot of content could be put under a more general heading like "Legal troubles". As it is now, I think much of this section amounts to a list of miscellany of unclear relevance.
Seems like "Social impact" could be fleshed out a little bit -- web2.0, democratizing of information, the significance of "everyone's a content creator", and so on. But, perhaps there hasn't been anything serious written on the topic (yet).

Hope it goes well. -- bcasterline • talk 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Nice work so far, here's some comments to help improve the article:

Expand the lead and improve it's overall quality. Given the size of the article you could double the size if the lead. I know this can be hard when you want to get the wording perfect. I myself am having trouble expanding a few leads in articles I'm working on. Also the lead's prose needs a little work, words like popular don't really add much. Try to be more descriptive, point to definable numbers. Second sentence in the lead contains a few redundancies. This is a recurring problem throughout the article sentences like: "In its short time on the web, YouTube has grown quickly and received much attention." are kind of useless and could be replaced with moe concrete definitive descrptions. Like, Since it's inception in 1999, youtube has steadily from x number of traffic hits to x number of traffic hits."
There's a lot if informal language like: "signed a deal" (should be contract) and "Hollywood remains divided on YouTube" surely that one guy speaking doesn't represent Hollywood. I mean unless he the official representative of the city. Be more specific and make it clear that whoever is talking is offering their summary of the opinions of the entertainment community. That one's a little broad of a generalization.
"Examples of infringement complaints" has no flow and looks a trivia section with the bullets removed and the title changed.
Prose could use some work; this is from the banning in Thailand section: "As for now it is unclear as to the reasons why."
In general the article is severely oversectionalized.

That's enough for now, deal with those and contact me and I'll try to see if I can give more comments. Quadzilla99 06:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]