Template:Did you know nominations/Spotify Wrapped

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Spotify Wrapped

(

)

... that the release of Spotify Wrapped each year correlates with an increase in Spotify's stock? Source: Bloomberg
- ALT1: ... that Spotify Wrapped has been both praised and criticized for effectively providing Spotify with free advertising? Source: Various, see Spotify Wrapped#Responses
- ALT2: ... that the viral marketing campaign Spotify Wrapped has led millions of people to promote Spotify on social media without being paid by the company? Source: Forbes
- ALT3: ... that Spotify's head of marketing has credited Spotify Wrapped with producing a "FOMO effect" to draw new users to the platform? Source: Forbes

Reviewed: Peter Hylenski
Comment: If this ran in the first few days of December, it would likely be just before or after the release of this year's Spotify Wrapped campaign, which would be neat

Created by Ezlev (talk). Self-nominated at 22:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - n
Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A good, concise, and neutral article about a thing we all gotta hear about about every year. Written and referenced quite well. jp×g 00:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC) I am not, however, seeing a ref that supports hook 1: the provided reference says “Spotify always sees a jump in app store rankings in early December following the Year in Review campaign,” analyst Kevin Rippey said in a note. This is not quite the stock price. While there was a stock price bump, the article attributes this to the Wrapped feature as well as vaccine developments and the company's acquisition of exclusive rights to a very popular podcast. I would go with ALT2 or ALT3. jp×g 00:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and for catching my mistake, JPxG! I’ve struck ALT0. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

looks good to me. jp×g 10:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ezlev and JPxG: I'm concerned that Newsweek was used as a source in the article for some relatively major points, even though it has a less-than-good status at WP:RSP—can something be done about that before promotion? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: As I recall, Newsweek was only listed as unreliable due to its acquisition by IBT in 2013 (and it was sold in 2018). That said, I didn't see a whole lot cited to Newsweek (there's only three cites for it). Most of it is stuff like as well as their activity on the platform over the past year, which seems like very basic information. If something else can be found for those sentences, however, I don't see why we can't add another source. jp×g 08:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, I'm impressed by the attention to detail! I left Newsweek in because I hadn't been able to find a more reliable source for the content it was supporting, but a little motivation goes a long way: I believe this will solve the problem? I left one of the Newsweek articles for a couple of minor details, but now that it's just corroborating Billboard I think it's much more appropriate. JPxG, your thoughts would be appreciated as well

ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 08:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Concerns assuaged, thanks ezlev! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

ALT1 to T:DYK/P7