Wikipedia:Peer review/PewDiePie/archive1

PewDiePie

This article has already been promoted to GA, and I think it has the potential to reach FA status. It would be great to get some fellow editors to suggest improvements to the page so that an FA nomination can be made.

Thanks, WackyWikiWoo (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Liz

Hello @WackyWikiWoo:

While I don’t follow internet celebrities, or know much about PewDiePie’s work.. I'm happy to give you my comments. I must be getting old, haha! As an outsider to all of this, here are my initial thoughts on the article for improving it.

Firstly, a Wikipedia biography of his nature is always going to be hard to write, let alone, become featured. This is because he’s an online celebrity – constantly doing things each day and creating content. You should cut all the noise and only include fascinating parts of his life. The other reason why it’s hard is because most of sources/references are from websites. There’s very few books on him. Website sources are fine but ensure they’re reliable, reputable media outlets and not unrecognised celebrity gossip / blog-style sites.

Lead section

• This is too long – aim for 3/4 paragraphs. First paragraph should “sell” the person by summarising their achievements and then the following 3 can be a chronological account of his work.
• The second paragraph about him going to university, dropping out and selling hotdogs is not important here. It can be mentioned later. Same goes for living in Brighton.
• Remember, focus on the highlights which lead to him becoming one of the most subscribed users on YouTube.

Internet career

• Everything in his internet career should run chronologically – starting from 2006 to the present day. Move the “Early years” section to the top. Talk about all his activities, from video making, mobile games and music.
• The chronological account should flow something like this:

1. Career beginnings (2006-12)
2. Rapid growth and popularity (2013-15)
3. Title here.. (2016-18)
4. Title here.. (2018-present)

• The sections YouTube content format, Production and output and Style should all be integrated into the chronological account of his YouTube career. Or perhaps create a later section called “YouTube video style” housing all of the above. There’s no need to mention it at the start.
• In fact, the first paragraph of the Style section sounds like media reception. Consider moving this and integrating to other parts of the article.
• As I was reading the sections Continued growth all the way to Media controversies, streaming, and formatted shows, I couldn’t get much substance from what PewDiePie actually did. As I mentioned earlier, talk more about his video content. What did he release? Who did he collaborate with? How popular was the release? What was the public/media reaction? (Think as if you’re writing a film actor’s biography)
• Keep everything in consistent paragraphs. Avoid two-line or three-line paragraphs unless you're making a summary of pertinent points.

• The Media controversies section contains excessive detail and deviates too far from the chronological account. It’s as if PewDiePie has done a sudden U-turn and generating a lot of controversy. Try to keep it focused. Cut straight to the facts about what he produced. It’s fine to include the media reaction to his videos but keep it short.
• For example, the first two paragraphs could be reduced to one. This is how I would write it:

In January 2017, Kjellberg uploaded a video which appeared to show him using a racial slur. The video garnered criticism and widespread attention on Twitter. In another video, Kjellberg featured ordinary people committing unusual acts to earn money. He paid two individuals to hold a threatening sign targeted at Jews. The video received negative attention and caused a media backlash. The Wall Street Journal observed that this was not the first time Kjellberg had used anti-Semitic language in his videos. Kjellberg and the two individuals issued an apology, but Kjellberg defended his actions in a blog.

• That paragraph above is sufficient for describing the incident. We’re not writing diary entries of “XXX did this, then XXX did that and XXX did this” It’s pointless, trivial and unnecessary commentary.
• I strongly consider creating a dedicated “Reception” section to place everything to do with media reception. I know there’s a sub-section already, but I suggest expanding/refining it. Large chunks of what the media think should be placed there.
• Further down, the May controversy could be reduced to:

In May, Kjellberg attracted controversy for using the term "Twitch thots" in one of his videos, a term directed at Alinity, a broadcaster on streaming service Twitch. Alinity responded by making a copyright claim against his video which was later removed by CollabDRM. Alinity stated that her reaction was caused by “the rampant sexism in online communities", arguing that Kjellberg’s comments degraded women. Alinity refused to accept Kjellberg's apology.

• The Subscriber competition section – the first two paragraphs also contain excessive detail. There is already an article about PewDiePie vs T-Series, so it doesn't need to be detailed here.
• You should use the section Other ventures to house the Philanthropy, Brands and sponsors and Appearances in media sections together. These are better placed in ventures rather than public image.
• Remember not to get bogged down in detail. In Brands and sponsors, this line is completely pointless and adds nothing to the article: “When another Twitter user mentioned the issue, tagging Kjellberg in their tweet, he responded, "I dont even remember saying this."
• It helps to ask yourself “so what?” after making a point.
• In Philanthropy, the first four paragraphs talk about good things, then it jumps to a controversy section. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of philantropy? While I understand the issue, the controversy could be shortened and combined with Philanthropy (one section only).

OTHER GENERAL POINTS

• There were 7 instances of when Kjellberg or someone tweeted something. It’s not necessarily bad but ask yourself if tweets add value to article - don't overuse them.
• This leads me to add that I think there are too many direct quotes in the article, which makes the article sound like a magazine. Try paraphrasing the quotes and incorporating them into the text.

EXAMPLE (#2 sounds better):

1. Kjellberg expressed, "I find that a lot of people that work with YouTube, almost anyone, have no idea what it's like to work as a content creator, as someone who's built this for years and really cared about it.
2. Kjellberg feels that many people don’t understand the job as a content creator, after having spent years devoting time to his YouTube channel.

This is all I have to write at this point. I hope you find my comments useful! There is quite a way to go before this can reach FA-level but don’t let this demotivate you. I suggest looking at Taylor Swift too, which is a FA and might help you with language and style. Lizzy (talk 15:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Lizzy150:, thank you for your feedback. I'll definitely take these into account while improving the article. Would you mind taking a look at my changes to the lead and see if it’s any better? WackyWikiWoo (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@WackyWikiWoo: No problem. Remember, collaborate with other editors who may be contributing to the article as well. I usually create a copy of an article, and work on it in a separate location so that drastic changes don't happen to the article overnight. The lead is better though! Don't hesitate to contact me if you need help in the future, thanks. Lizzy (talk 17:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lizzy150: Thanks, I’ll take that into account for future. This is my first peer review request, so I’m still learning the logistics :) WackyWikiWoo (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)