Talk:MrBeast/GA2

GA Review

Closed for inactivity. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:39, 29 March 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

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 01:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for abandoning the previous nomination. I had no idea what to do and assumed you were inactive. This time I'll make sure to do a full review. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: gentle ping to check in on this. Are you still intending to review this? Or should we return the article to the queue for someone else to pick up? Ajpolino (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still reviewing. School's really pushing me back on this. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TrademarkedTWOrantula, reminder ping that this is still outstanding. -- asilvering (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dang it I keep forgetting this nomination TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Endof: Still here? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 06:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, still here. I've been busy with my personal life so I apologize for not being active. I've fixed some of the copyvio you've mentioned, and when I have the free time I'll work on the rest of the issues. Endof talk 16:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Endof: Should I fail this nomination? It's been going on for quite some time. Also, I'm about to go somewhere, and I'd hate to have unfinished business while I'm away. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Endof: I'll go ahead and fail this again. I'll leave someone with more experience to review this. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:23, 29 March 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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No bare URLs spotted.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	~~Prior to review, Earwig says that the top result is at a 58.1% similarity. Quotes could be shortened.1~~ This has been fixed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable; there have been no recent edit wars.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	In my opinion, we only need one image of MrBeast. At this point in time, there are three. I don't see why having two of the same person in one section ("Mainstream success") is necessary. The captions are suitable, though.
	7. Overall assessment.

Quickfail?

Y Article is stable.
Y There was a prior GA review, but that was only because I was too lazy to finish the review.
Y ~~Concerning copyvio report ([1]).~~ Endof has reduced text. Top result is now at a similarity of 41%.
Y ~~Haven't read the full article yet...~~ I don't see any blatant issues

Some notes before we begin

Okayyyy... so I'm seeing a bunch of questionable sources that are referenced:
- Mashable, Tubefilter, and a few primary sources are sprinkled throughout the article.
WP:PROSELINE in the "Investments and partnerships" and "Personal life" sections

Lead

"handle" -> "username"
videos estimating the wealth of other YouTubers - Why is this quoted?
Why is "counting to 100,000" in quotes?
earned ~~tens of~~ thousands of views

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.