Talk:Ludwig's subathon/GA1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

Passed. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 18:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hey there, PerfectSoundWhatever. I'll be reviewing this article over the following days. Look forward to working with you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks so much for taking up this review! Will begin resolving the comments soon :) — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • then Ahgren's livestreaming platform - Is it not anymore? Perhaps provide a note here
  • the 2020 resurgence of Among Us. - Some readers may be unfamiliar with Among Us. I'd suggest specifying that it's a video game
  • According to The New York Times, Ahgren's stream was a part of another trend, of "creators monetizing more and more parts of their lives" - Several things to comment on here
  1. I suggest crediting the author of the article, Taylor Lorenz
  2. They stated that it "could be seen as", not that it "was".
  3. Perhaps just write "was part of a trend"
  4. I suggest removing the comma between "trend" and "of"
  • The rescheduled stream was altered to be a subathon - Is there a reason why?
    • There isn't a reason in any secondary sources that I know of. I'm sure he stated why in some stream / video, but it'd be difficult to dig that up. I would assume that he altered it as an extra bonus to the viewers since the stream was cancelled — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially hesitant about using Game Rant and Business Insider as sources, but the information they verify is fairly trivial, so I'll let it slide here. If you can find other sources that also verify this information, that would be preferred. (See: WP:VG/RS and WP:RSP). The same applies to Screen Rant, but I'll get to them later. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Livestream

  • talking to his viewers or moderators - "or"? I'd just write "and"
  • hosting movie nights - This wording is very colloquial. I'd suggest something a la "watching movies with the audience", or similar.
  • by talking, watching videos and playing movies - You use the Oxford comma elsewhere in the article. Use it here as well.
  • Kotaku wrote - Kotaku didn't write this; their author Nathan Grayson wrote it.
  • You should either clarify what "gift subscription" means, or rewrite it. Readers may not be familiar with this terminology
  • Ahgren reached two million Twitch followers during the stream - Readers may not know that followers and subscriptions are different on Twitch, so having it in the middle of the paragraph about subscriptions might make readers think he earned earned two million subscriptions in that time. I'd suggest moving this somewhere else.
  • he stated he will - He would
  • The quote states that he became the most viewed streamer on Twitch. Can you include this in the body? (With a reliable source of course). Also, I'd prefer the usage of Template:Tweet in place of quotebox as it includes a date and time.
    • The only one I could find was Business Insider; multiple publications also quote the tweet but don't say the most viewers thing in prose. I can search for a better source if requested. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Screen Rant source doesn't state that the stream lasted for a total of 30 days, but that it had gone on for 30 days at the time of writing. The article was published on April 12, so this would indicate that it did last for 31 days. If it truly lasted for 30 days, I'd suggest finding another source for this, because as it stands, it actually doesn't verify anything. Also, just looking at a calendar can verify that March 14 till April 13 consists of 31 days

ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earnings

  • I would suggest replacing the Screen Rant source, but I tried looking for others that verified the information and literally couldn't find any other articles. It seems to just be using the same numbers as Ahgren's video, so it seems fairly trivial here.
  • Since many streamers do not pay their moderators, according to Game Rant, the payments to Ahgren's moderators "is making a big difference" for them. - This sentence is synthesis and should be avoided; The topic of the first clause is Twitch moderators in general, while the second clause talks specifically about Ahgren's moderators, so they're not actually related at all. Also, as stated earlier, Game Rant is a situationally reliable source per WP:VG/RS, and should be avoided when making statements like this. I'd replace this entire sentence with something like "Ahgren is notable for having paid his chat moderators for their work on the stream, an uncommon practice on Twitch."
  • Ahgren has been criticized - This should be in the reception section.
  • Ahgren told viewers to not donate money from their - Perhaps replace "told" with "encouraged".
    •  Not done I prefer the original wording, "encouraged" feels odd to me here. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and legacy

  • The first paragraph of the section reads like a list. I'd suggest varying the structure here.
  • Please attribute the opinions to their respective authors instead of just the people they work for. This may not, strictly speaking, be necessary, but I feel like reception sections in particular are better with proper attribution because they are ultimately the opinion of authors writing for these companies, and not comments from the companies themselves.
  • Link directly to Upcomer instead of Enthusiast Gaming. See MOS:NOPIPE for reasons.
  • his sleeping - This is technically grammatically correct, and this a personal nitpick of mine, so you can go ahead and ignore it if you want: I'd suggest avoiding using possessive determiners with gerunds, instead replacing them with object pronouns, i.e. "Ahgren broadcasting himself sleeping" instead of "his sleeping".
  • "accused " is a very strong word. Perhaps just use "criticized".
  • I'd suggest putting a colon before Lara's quote, as not using it would create a mix of tenses.
  • sleep streams by women are criticized for their ease of making money, but men sleep streams are not - This is a rather awkward sentence for several reasons (present tense, odd compounds), so here's my suggestion for rewriting it: "She noted that women would receive negative reception for streaming themselves sleeping, while men would not."
    • I ended up removing this, because my statement was reading in between the lines too much, and removing that part was basically the same as the quote. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahgren's stream induced discussion on the healthiness of "marathon" streams of such length - This sentence also reads rather awkwardly, especially coming directly after the previous one. Here's my suggestion: "Ahgren's stream also induced discussion on how unhealthy marathon streams of such length could be"
  • There is some weird mixing of tenses going on with Screen Rant's comments on health. I'd suggest paraphrasing here.
  • Ahgren is credited with the increased popularity - By who?
  • is unbroken - "remained unbroken" reads better here.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Lead

  • The second paragraph uses the word "stream" a lot. I'd suggest varying the language.
  • is unbroken - remains unbroken
  • viewers or stream moderators - Again, why "or"?
  • playing games and sleeping - Missing Oxford comma

Images

  • Add alt text for accessibility
  • The images all seem to have valid licences or fair use rationales, so nothing to comment on there

ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall assessment

Seems like I got this done quicker than I expected to. Anyway, there're a lot of issues with the article that keep it from meeting the GA criteria as is, mainly sourcing and prose. The other four GA criteria are easily met however, so good work so far. I checked for any potential copyright violations with Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and the only things it caught were quotes, so nothing of concern in that regard. I'll put this article on hold for 7 days until the concerns I have with the article have been rectified. ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ArcticSeeress: Thanks a lot for the review! I think I got to everything, let me know if you see any more issues. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the article and made some minor changes. I feel comfortable saying that this reaches the GA criteria. Good work! ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Ludwig%27s_subathon/GA1"