Talk:Spotify Wrapped

Did you know nomination

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)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... 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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spotify Wrapped/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DecrepitlyOnward (talk · contribs) 19:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Figured that I would review this since Spotify Wrapped is one of my guilty pleasures. DecrepitlyOnward (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lead

• Released in early December every year since 2016 → Released annually in early December since 2016
  •  Done
• past year, then invites → past year and invites
  •  Done
• and has been characterized as related to broader questions about data and Spotify's use of it

This phrase is confusing, but at least change "related" to "relating"

Changed to "and has been discussed in connection with broader questions about data and Spotify's use of it"

The lead is a bit short for the length of the article--it could have more information about the criticism of the data collection that Spotify does, as that covers almost 4 full paragraphs in the response section. DecrepitlyOnward (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Expanded a bit!

Structure

The Bowenbank source does not explicitly talk about "producers on the platform" being able to use Wrapped too, though I'm assuming the Braun source does

You assume correctly – I've made tweaks to try to make that clearer

• and are invited to share information

Redundant

Removed!

History

• It was preceded in 2015 by a similar but less developed campaign called "Year in Music".

This sentence has a ton of citations--if one or two sources support this entire sentence, then remove the rest—if not, then this is fine

Improved slightly

Responses

• after it came out near the beginning of the month.

What day?

Unfortunately, the Forbes source just says "earlier this month" and is from Dec 17. Cinjakov is even vaguer.

• In 2020, an opinion article by Meredith Clark in NBC Think described Wrapped...

This could be merged with the previous mention of a 2020 article (In 2020, an article in The Baffler...)

It would be helpful to organize the information in the "In Media" section chronologically, as that seems to be the case except with the 2020 article mentions

The non-chronological parts were because I was trying to separate out direct criticism from more neutral analyses, which I've now done with two subsections – content within each one is chronological

Copyvio

Earwig looks fine, top result was copy-and-pasted from this article

General comments

Placing on hold for 7 days, but it won't need nearly as much time to fix. Overall, the article is very good and an interesting read. I wish you luck in completing the to-do list, which will probably improve this article a bit, but nevertheless this is still GA quality. DecrepitlyOnward (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review, DecrepitlyOnward! I've made changes, if you want to take a look. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! I made a minor tweak to the history section, which you can review and undo if you wish. I still have some concerns about excessive use of citations in some sentences, though there's nothing preventing this from becoming a GA. (also congrats on getting 2 in one day, that is half luck and half genuinely impressive) Decrepitly Onward (he/they, fine with any, use as you wish) (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd call it at least three-quarters luck, DecrepitlyOnward – thank you! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

End date collecting data

I think we should say 'an unknown date' instead of 'the end of October'. Spotify has clarified they continued counting streams after Oct 31st. Feel free to discuss. Sn0wp0ps (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)