# Talk:Spotify Wrapped

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)


### 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)

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)