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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 17:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mulling for a couple days now about picking this one off the GAN list. My first comments will probably be in a few days. There's obviously some tricky subject matter here, and I respect the effort that's been made around it (especially in such a high-profile article and for a newer editor), though there are very much areas I think need work. I also notice from XTools and Who Wrote That? that the article has more authors than is common for quality-assessed articles/is less 'cohesive', which is a bit visible in the text. That's not a bad thing -- collaboration is the spirit of the project -- but it does result in some non-ideal ways of presenting facts, writing prose, etc that will come up. Vaticidalprophet 17:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: Hello, and thank you for choosing to review the article. I'm free this whole week so I'll try to respond to your comments in a timely manner. I do agree that this article involves quite controversial material, which is probably why it has a large number of authors - that and Etika's large following as an internet personality. I mainly focused on cleaning up and rewriting the article with as many reliable (in context) sources as possible while simultaneously trying to retain other editors' contributions as well. In my opinion I felt that prose issues were the easiest to fix, so I admittedly focused a bit more on the other criteria. As for the rest, I'll discuss more in the review. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning comments:

• Date of death is problematic. I've seen the discussions on the talk page, and understand it's hard to pick a date here without introducing some issues. "Circa" is obviously indicated and correctly used, but the 19th seems like a poor date to pick, considering it's before even his final upload.
  • NY Times and Daily Dot pointed out that the video was scheduled to upload at midnight, with both suggesting that he had jumped before the video was released (YouTube allows users to schedule video uploads). I feel the 19th is appropriate, but would a refnote on the dates work better?
    • Yo. An article from ABC News states that "Amofah, 29, was last heard from on June 19 around 8 p.m., the New York Police Department tweeted last week." I added a refnote next to the infobox's death date to clarify the circa. Does the date in the beginning paragraph of the lede also need the note, or is it fine as is?
      • Thank you for this HappyBoi3892. Hope you don't mind but I moved the note down to that section and added EST to clarify the time zone. But if you're both okay with it, it can go in the lede. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The note looks fine, and having it in the lead is probably the best place to put it (statistically, around 60% of readers only read the lead of an article). Vaticidalprophet 08:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd drop 'best known for', which is a common enough opening, but not an uncontroversial one. It's frequently understood as non-neutral in tone, and in many articles -- with this unfortunately being one -- it's open to debate what the subject is actually best known for.
  •  Partly done - rewrote to "became known online" for now until I find a better phrase. I assume you mean that it's debatable whether he was more notable for his internet career or his struggles with mental health, which is quite perceptive - thank you. Virtually every reliable source about him states he was best known as a Nintendo YouTuber/internet personality, but much of his media coverage did come from his breakdowns and death.
• He was a son of Ghanaian politician Owuraku Amofah is an awkward phrasing. "The son of of Ghanaian politician Owuraku Amofah, he lived in Brooklyn, New York, for most of his life" is more natural -- while he had many siblings, this is still generally understood as a phrasing that allows for siblings.
  •  Done
• The third paragraph seems slightly too detailed at parts for the lead, which should be a relatively general overview, especially when dealing with such complex details as this. The amount of details also creates some problems, such as Following a suspension from Twitter, Amofah uploaded pornography to the EWNetwork channel in October 2018, resulting in its termination; he then posted statements on social media alluding to suicide leaving the implication that this termination directly encouraged his suicide.
  •  Partly done - I wouldn't say the Twitter suspension directly encouraged it, but sources did consider it as sort of the catalyst for his first breakdown, as he uploaded a video reacting to the ban while showing erratic behavior. Regardless, I removed it and made the paragraph a bit more general.
• would also be terminated should just be "was terminated" -- "would be" is sometimes indicated as a phrasing, but a lot of the time, such as here, it sounds stilted.
  •  Done.
• You have a lot of bolded channels named in the lead. It's worth thinking about how many of these you need to mention in the lead, and how many of them are significant enough names (not just channels, but names people think of when they think of Etika) that they should be in bold.
  •  Partly done - unbolded channels, but kept them in the lead because a big aspect of Etika's story includes his YouTube terminations. Multiple sources pointed out that he switched channels following his main account, EWNetwork, being terminated (NYT, Power Unlimited, The Verge, etc.) and it's a fairly non-trivial aspect to include in the lead.
• On June 20, 2019, Amofah was reported missing after an apologetic video was uploaded to his TR1Iceman channel, in which he admitted to having mental health issues -- is 'in which he admitted to having mental health issues' a necessary addition to this sentence? I'd be very careful in general with phrasing like this (I see it repeats in the "Disappearance and death" section) -- it's easily understood as specifically referring to e.g. psychiatric diagnosis, which we should not give the impression of if it's not actually said. In the lead specifically, I think "was reported missing after an apologetic video" gets the idea across more than well enough.
  •  Done - removed sentence, but sources do point out that he does say he believed he was mentally ill. I'll rewrite that part when we get to it.
• many observers have commented that the signs of Amofah's mental deterioration were either downplayed or ignored prior to his suicide This is followed by three citations...in the lead. If you need to have something not only cited but cited that heavily in the lead, it's questionable whether you should in fact have it. The "indifference" phrase before this gets the idea across more than well enough.
  • Actually, I intentionally left those three there for two reasons: one per this guideline - I think that the public perception of Etika's actions were a bit too exceptional to be left without a citation. And two, because I felt those were the strongest sources in the article. Each source covers Etika's story in detail that conveys his career, mental struggles and public reactions comprehensively. I intended it such that if the average reader decides not to read the full page, they would at least read the lead and (hopefully) those sources together. If you still believe otherwise, I'll move them.

• You don't need to explicitly specify which parent was which -- it's clear from context.
  •  Done.
• Do we have additional details on any profession, background, maiden name, etc of his mother?
  • Not much besides Daily Dot and Insider, so she's fairly low profile. I omitted that info as a result, and I don't believe the article loses much without said info regardless.
    • Your call, but I know more than a few editors (including more than a few at FAC) who bristle at the 'father has significant mention of his career, mother is just a name' phenomenon. If the sourcing exists, it might still be worth balancing that, especially given his father is himself notable, so cutting down mention of him is the wrong balance. On that note: it's a little difficult to figure out some early chronology from Owuraku Amofah's article. Do we know if Etika ever lived in Ghana as a kid, or otherwise why his father was a politician in another country while he was growing up in the US? Vaticidalprophet 05:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I do wish I could come across an extra good source about her that slipped past me, but so far I've come up empty - if I do find any I'll add it ASAP. As for his father, the closest I could find about such info was this video, but in it Desmond said that he didn't really "talk" to him because of his political position. Plus, most other sources say he was a New York native and never mentioned him living in Ghana.
        • I think it's within reasonable discretion to say something like "His father was based in Ghana in the 1990s[secondary source confirming that] and Amofah said they [were relatively distant/rarely interacted/something that's well-supported by the source] when he was a child[primary source]". Regarding sourcing, one thing I'll note is that you're not restricted to online sources. For Etika's life proper they tend to be the best ones, but around his parents and some other details, you might find significantly more in archives of pre-internet sources (e.g. newspaper archives) than you can from just Google. You'll have access to some of them through WP:TWL, though unfortunately a basic search for me on them didn't find much either. Ghanaian archive sources in particular might be tricky, but should exist and be findable somewhere. For GAN rather than FAC, though, I think the sort of structure I mention in the first sentence is enough; seeking out offline sources is something you want to do in the time between the two. Vaticidalprophet 10:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added your suggestion. I also spent the day on TWL too, but still couldn't find much for his parents, especially his mother; I'll keep looking however later on.
• If possible, can we get an actual number of siblings?
  •  Done - Only found his older brother and half-brother, removing "several".
• Heavy is a pretty bad source (many of their articles are heavily recycled from us or from social media). Is Randy discussed in any other sources?
  •  Done Power Unlimited and Newsweek* mention him, but I kept the Heavy source because I assumed it was situationally reliable. Added better sourcing for the time being.
• I'm also curious if there are better sources than Insider for Valery, though I'm willing to accept a lower bar for 'citing that he exists' than for citing pretty much any of the claims the Insider article makes.
  • It's the only source I could find. Insider is considered reliable for culture however and it's only used for this small instance.
    • I'm willing to take it, especially here, and I think it's worth having. Having said that, I'm noting you've talked about taking this article to FAC. FAC can be very strict on sourcing even for pop culture -- it's worth reading a few pop culture FACs and getting a sense of what people expect. I don't know if some of the sources in this article would pass a stricter reviewer, though it's very individual and arguable. Vaticidalprophet 05:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noted. If I do take it to FAC and it's held up to scrutiny, I'll have to omit it unless I somehow find another source.
• I'm not sure about the editorial judgement re. mentioning his high school...club? videos? It's more interesting if there are any sources available about why he ended up at that school, rather than what's honestly kind of trivia about his time there. The two paragraphs about different schools can probably be cut down and consolidated. From where I'm standing the implication seems to be that he was sent to that school because of the fighting, though I'm not sure if any sources explicitly say this.
  •  Partly done Yeah… that was one of the few parts of the article I was fretful about with this review. I never added this, but I didn't remove it because I loosely followed WP:SPS and WP:BDP. Didn't find anything else besides his videos, so I trimmed the fat here. I'll continue to work on this section tomorrow or so.
• Watch out both here and in general for MOS:LQ -- you mostly have punctuation inside quotes, whereas by the Manual of Style it should be outside. (Probably worth just going through the article find-replacing ." to "., outside blockquotes.)
  •  Done - fixed all quotes in article.
• Amofah started modeling in his early twenties and continued until 2015. Any clarity on why he stopped?
  •  Done - Comicbook, Vox and Heavy didn't mention it, but the video source stated that he became less passionate about it (see 1:40). Added this.
• Probably worth adding a bit of context about what Model Mayhem is.
  •  Done + agreed. Explained it was a social media website for models.
• One of the best pieces of advice there is on writing Wikipedia articles is "assume the reader is an intelligent fourteen-year-old who doesn't have any prior knowledge of the topic". On modern pop culture articles like this, I'd propose a corollary: if the reader is a parent or grandparent trying to understand what their kid/grandkid is talking about, how good is the article for them? With this in mind, I want to query two things, does Etika detail what the cheat code he's named after did, and is there any more detail on what he was inspired by in San Andreas (e.g. a particular character)?
  •  Partly done - He explains that the music and hairstyles in the game influenced him in the Twitter clip, but not CJ or any character; I'm considering removing it as there are better sources that talk about his hair ("Guile-kun" in Career). 4Gamer and NYT only mention it's a Sonic cheat code without any explanation, but only unusable social media posts state it. But since this site isn't a game guide, I figured omitting what the cheat code does isn't too important. However, I can revise this later on too if needed. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine. I note now from the talk, though, that there's some dispute over whether it was actually possible for him to have been 12 when he picked the nickname, which should probably be fixed in the article text. This should be fine once that's resolved. Vaticidalprophet 10:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done - Decided to remove age part; hope that's a fair compromise.

• Here is the biggest issue: I do not like the "Mental decline" subsection header. I think it's the one seriously bad call in an article that otherwise handles the issue reasonably well. It's a very harsh, presumptory phrasing. You could pick something relatively nondescript like "Later career", or remove the header and treat it all in one section. You could also try for a milder phrasing of the same idea (something like "Erratic behaviour"), but I'm not super sold on this, because it raises questions of editorial judgement -- the decision to include or exclude things from a section with such a heading is going to be pretty big. Again, a few ways to handle it, but it needs to be handled.
  • Wholeheartedly agree. Would this work: "Origins and popularity (2012–2018)" and "Channel terminations and breakdowns (2018–2019)"? The latter sans the dates was the original section name before "Mental decline." If not, I'll rewrite it to "Erratic behavior" based on your suggestion.
    • I saw in the edit history that "Channel terminations and breakdowns" was the previous heading, though I'm not super sold on "breakdowns". I think a consolidation to something like "Channel terminations and erratic behavior" gets the idea across well without going too hard on it. Vaticidalprophet 05:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like that too. Are the dates okay as well? If so I'll mark it done.
        • Dates are fine. Vaticidalprophet 10:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then  Done.
• The "November 2016" and "June 2017" mini-paragraphs should probably be scrapped entirely. They're the kind of WP:PROSELINE minor-controversies that tend to populate pop culture articles without ever being of much value; on something like this, they're just bathos when offset by actual, huge controversies later.
  •  Partly done - Actually I rewrote both in order to show their encyclopedic value. The fake Switch incident was the origin of the "JOYCON BOYZ" phrase that reliable sources noted, showing it did have an impact to his career. For the donations I appended it after the $300k statement because of how it relates to his finances, and the Kotaku source was quite comprehensive and factual. Also, the fake Switch event was one of my ideas for a DYK quote.
    • Good to see :) Vaticidalprophet 05:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Initially centered around gaming news, Amofah's video output consisted of Let's Play videos of Nintendo games alongside reaction videos of gaming announcements, mainly of Nintendo Direct presentations. Many of his reactions to such presentations usually involved him screaming and falling out of his chair in elated shock and tossing objects around his room. While this is trying admirably for a show-don't-tell phrasing of 'exaggeratedly upbeat reaction videos', it sounds a bit...jarring. Amofah's video output, initially centered around gaming news, evolved over time to a focus on Let's Play videos of Nintendo games alongside reaction videos of gaming announcements. His reaction videos, mainly of Nintendo Direct presentations, were noted for their characteristic exaggerated and energetic style; they featured elements such falling out of his chair in elated shock and tossing objects around his room.
  •  Done - prefer this much more :)
• Amofah's channel garnered popularity in 2014 due to should in this context have a comma before 'due to'.
  •  Done.
• Amofah's channel continued to grow in popularity as he made more videos centered around his reactions to gaming news and YouTube drama, and according to him, he was earning over $300,000 a year through stream donations. Given that this is multiple clauses that could be multiple sections, 'and according to' might read better as '; according to'. Having said that, perhaps more importantly: any specific dates for when he said this?
  •  Done for the most part. Revised with your suggestion, but the NYT source doesn't give a specific date sadly. Would it still be okay to include?
• Despite focusing on Nintendo-related content, Amofah also made playthroughs of various video games "Also" is usually superfluous, and "despite" a bit presumptory, with weird "did he have a non-compete clause or what?" implications to a reader not super-familiar with fandom YTers. Though he primarily focused on Nintendo-related content, Amofah made playthroughs of video games from multiple publishers, such as [examples].
  •  Done - initially wrote "Despite..." to contrast how he was typically more recognized for his Nintendo-based content as opposed to playing other games, but I prefer your change.
• I linked WP:PROSELINE above. In the "mental decline" section (pending section retitle): read this essay, and internalize it. This is an article for which PROSELINE styles are kind of understandable, because we're often talking about things that happened in quick succession, and unlike many other situations a lot of those things do remain individually relevant; nonetheless, there's work that can be done here to restructure this section in a more cohesive manner. I'll be able to make more detailed comments on it later, but it needs at least a first pass to see what can be done to make it less PROSELINE-y and not so much of an "on date X, Y happened and people got mad about it". We can present this as a cohesive 'thing that happened', and not a series of actions and reactions.
  • Thank you so much for linking this essay. I'll try to keep this in mind when revising this section, but this portion will admittedly take a bit of time for me to revise so I can do this as properly as possible. I'll start work on this tomorrow. PantheonRadiance (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Started a little on fixing the prose tonight, but I'll take care of it tomorrow (it's almost 1 AM PST for me). PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • EDIT: I tried to reduce the PROSELINE today but came up a bit short; a bit harder than I anticipated. I think that I would definitely benefit for your feedback on this, so I'll await your comments on the rest of the article. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Vaticidalprophet 12:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking back over this part before continuing.

• I'm not going too hard on minor prose errors, because I anticipate doing some copyediting myself in the post-GAN pre-FAC phase. Having said that, for the Despite his earnings, Amofah had revealed in a June 2017 video that he had dealt with multiple "chargebacks", or "fake donations" of large amounts of money sent to his PayPal account via stream donations, which would jostle Amofah with hundreds of dollars in processing fees sentence -- is 'jostle' really the best word here, and is 'via stream donations' a necessary addition given it's known to be his primary income source?

• This section is tricky for sourcing. Of the various sources used in the article, the hardest sells at FAC will be Heavy and Newsweek. Heavy seems mostly excisable, but Newsweek is used a few times in this section for fairly important content. In an article on a living person currently embroiled in such a controversy, this would be full-stop inappropriate -- the exact reason people oppose Newsweek is because it tends towards a lot of "insensitive celebrity gossip". However, in this context, I think at least minor use is arguable; the same in-depth coverage of controversy that makes it an unusable source for negative claims against living people means it provides useful detail here. (FAC reviewers may disagree. I'm less strict than some of them are.) Having said that, it should really be kept to a minimum, so it's worthwhile going through this and seeing what can be re-cited to a better source.

I'm leaving just that comment for now -- it's a fairly big one in terms of the section's structure, so it'd be more worthwhile seeing if anything noticeably changes before commenting further. Vaticidalprophet 17:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed down Newsweek usage to only two instances, using sources like Vox, HuffPost, and People to replace such sources. Also, I CEd the "chargebacks" statement. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing this section. The proseline copyedits have really improved flow and readability -- good job on that :)

• The link to anxiety in "anxiety medication" is not ideal. We have an article on those drugs at Anxiolytic, so instead 'anxiety medication' should be a piped link to it, especially to clear up to readers that this describes many different classes of drugs.
  • Wikilinked.
• I absolutely understand the sources might not specify, but...is 'pornography' ever called out further? Like, did he upload 'nudes' or 'screwed up possibly illegal porn' or what? Those have pretty different implications. Again, definitely get this might not be sourcable, but it's weirdly general. (I was aware of all the Etika drama when it was ongoing, but didn't follow close, and he's not the kind of YTer I watch otherwise.)
  • Power Unlimited says hentai, but regardless I personally think just pornography gets the point across (banned for posting inappropriate content). I can add later though in my next edit. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• In the quotebox -- I mentioned this as the one kind of quote where MOS:LQ doesn't apply, because it's a large paragraph offset by quotation marks, rather than the relatively short quotes in the article text. I also vaguely wonder if the image and quotebox should switch places, but this is arguable either way.
• The (that were promptly deleted) parenthesis is of unclear relevance -- it's best not to have parentheses in articles too much anyway. Is the implication meant to be that he deleted them himself, implying regret or similar, or that they were deleted by Twitter's moderation team? The latter is probably too trivial to include. The former might be worth clarifying. If the sources don't specify, we should probably remove.
  • Specified that he deleted them via Daily Dot source.
• alarmingly erratic may be editorializing. (We say the exact words 'erratic behavior' a lot in this section, which is probably worth looking over, but also understandable as a least-bad phrasing giving the issues with calling people 'mentally ill' in wikivoice. I'll expand on that in the next section, given it comes up again.)
  • Removed and rewrote.
• Him being detained on livestream just kind of...sneaks in there. Given so many of the sources are about this specific incident, and it was so much of a Big Deal, it's probably worth making more prominent -- its own paragraph, detail if applicable, etc. In terms of WP:DUE, if it comes down to it, trimming down the 'other things that happened' to write more about this is probably the better balance in a zero-sum situation.
  • Expanded a bit more on it, but decided not to make into separate paragraph.
• Following the interview, Amofah was detained again that week for assaulting a police officer. This paragraph as a whole is very strong, but 'that week' is a bit superfluous/drags a little. It's clear from the rest that the second detainment happened shortly after.
• Did he ever have charges pressed against him for assaulting a cop?
  • Clarified that he was not arrested but taken to the hospital as stated in the sources.
• symptomatic of genuine mental ailment is sort of awkward (especially given the aforementioned 'tricky to call people mentally ill in wikivoice'), but...understandable. "Symptomatic" is probably the word to strike there, given it again implies specific things we really don't want to imply (e.g. having any particular diagnosis of a specific mental illness with known symptoms).
  • Would "indicative" work better?
• During the majority of Amofah's livestreams in 2019, a large cohort of viewers would frequently spam clown emojis as a way to mock his behavior. This is overwritten. During Amofah's livestreams in this period, many viewers mocked his behavior by spamming clown emojis.
  • Sorry for the late reply (4th of July), but I believe that all above are for the most part  Done. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back to the mental illness point, which again, the next section deals with a lot. Etika described himself as 'probably mentally ill', and acted in ways that people informally ascribed labels to, but saying much more than that becomes tricky real fast. Wikipedia is, for better or worse, authoritative; saying 'in wikivoice' that Etika 'had mental health issues', 'was mentally ill', etc. strongly gives specific impressions. In particular, the most problematic impression is that he was diagnosed with a specific psychiatric label, or needed specific treatments. The article never says as much and I'm certainly not accusing you of that, but this is something many readers come away with when they read those, and it's very difficult to write these articles in a way that doesn't give such impressions.

I recently wrote Marie Sophie Hingst, which is a GA with some similar qualities (internet-culture person who committed suicide around the same time and age, with lots of speculation about her mental health) that I'm preparing for FAC in the near future. The contexts are very different, but you can see from that article the caution I've used around terminology. Outside the lead -- which I'm still trying to find the right phrasing for -- I've been very careful about not saying things that imply Hingst was mentally ill, or could be diagnosed with a specific label. (German Wikipedia and Wikidata have been less cautious, but that's their problem.) Even the lead just says 'her mental health', without going into further detail. It might be useful to go through and see the ways I've tried to handle that problem myself. Part of why I picked up this review was the firsthand experience writing around similar subjects of "people coded as 'mentally ill' by most sources and their actions, but never actually openly diagnosed with anything or otherwise able to be called such in wikivoice". It's hard, and you've done a pretty fantastic job of it for a first major article contribution, but it still needs some work in the next section especially. Vaticidalprophet 15:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough; I'll try to keep this in mind when editing, but I do wish to note that a few articles in the section include mental health researchers and journalists who weighed in on Amofah's behavior and perceived that he showed signs of struggling with mental health (but of course not diagnosing him with any label). I believe it should be due weight to keep such perspectives in the article, but I'll definitely revise based on your suggestions. Already rewrote parts of what Amofah said in the video based on the sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Recording for posterity that I'm aware of the disputes surrounding the video inclusion and have no particular opinions on it.
• stated that he was dead at the point of recovery -- 'discovery' is less awkward here than 'recovery'.
  •  Done
• sent information to Amofah's account which related to national suicide hotlines Did they do this before (when he was visibly behaving oddly) or...after he uploaded the suicide note?
  • The NYT source said YouTube typically sends an email that includes hotlines to channels that post videos which express suicidal ideation, after removing such videos per their policy. Partially rewrote to make it more verifiable to the source.
• The "list of people who reacted" paragraph is a little stilted. Partially this is a matter of overuse of 'also'; partially it's the combination of extensive quoting with a sort of random-seeming selection of people involved. 'Also' is a frequently superfluous word, so maybe just pass over here quickly to check the phrasing.
  • Copy edited, I think it should be good now but I'll revise just in case.
• The aforementioned mental health researchers stressed the need to inform more people on social media about the signs of mental illness, depression, and suicidal thoughts so that they can better recognize when people in a mindset similar to Amofah's are in danger and need support is probably the part of the article that crosses most problematically into "strong impression of a specific diagnosis". I'm not really comfortable with the way it alludes to a specific authority quoting specific symptoms and making specific comparisons. In general, I think you could more naturally combine the paragraph including this and the one that follows it, and omit the parts (like this) that make the most specific statements about information we don't actually have. Things like the quote from his friend, and the quote from Patricia Hernandez [Wikidata] (that link might be warranted here), get the idea across more than well enough.
  • Hmm, I would've thought to add a bit more commentary from the mental health researchers, such as those in the NBC article, but I can see how it could be construed that way. In the process of rewriting it. EDIT: Combined paragraphs together and rewrote based on NBC source that they emphasized the need for more research on social media's effects on mental health. Marking as  Done for now.
• I worry that this section is absolving Keem of responsibility a little/strays out of NPOV. I'm not saying he's responsible, but many sources and many reactions represented him more negatively than this. You've got, for instance, this article in Persona Studies (a fairly legit academic journal) mentioning Klein's coverage of the situation and how it impacted Keem's career.
  • Pardon my language, but... LMFAOOOO. When I submitted this to GA, I was actually worried about the exact opposite - whether it was worth keeping info about Keem's backlash in the first place and if it veered too much into non-NPOV and undue weight (not to mention the scope of the article too). But I decided to keep it because there were some reliable sources that discussed it, and even more that described Keem's interview. I've added info from the journal into the article now.
• I'm not sold at all on the relevance of the Ouija board bit -- it feels like a holdover from the "written in real time during ongoing dramatics" stage.
  •  Done - Decided to remove for now unless anyone objects to it. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jamie Lauren Keiles has an article and can be bluelinked.
  •  Done - Thanks HappyBoi3892 :)
• I am not sold on the relevance of the last two paragraphs, especially the last paragraph. (This was going to be 'last three', but I think something got removed.)
  • I actually moved the "2021 Nintendo Direct" statement to the third Legacy paragraph to avoid PROSELINE once more. Also, I had an extra source from Multiplayer.it (reliable per VG/RS) that wrote about the NFT incident, but I'll remove both paragraphs if they seem too trivial. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• List of solved missing person cases is a bit, uh, blunt. A see-also section might be indicated here, but that doesn't seem like the right inclusion.
  • Removed. Couldn't think of any other article to link so I left "List of YouTubers" there. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That should be...much of it? I'll do another pass-through for things I missed. Vaticidalprophet 08:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point, I think I got almost all of your suggestions added, but in the meantime I'll do some more CEs while awaiting your final comments. Please let me know if there are still any issues with the article and I'll fix them ASAP - I'm going to work on this all day tomorrow (7/9). PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's in pretty good shape now! (And yeah, I suspected the Keem paragraph might have been a "tried not to go anti-POV, accidentally skewed the other way" situation.) I still don't think the NFT thing is relevant -- consider the ten-year test, another essay people bring up a lot in recent-events articles. I'm honestly 50-50 on whether NFTs pass the ten-year test at all, let alone for this specific article. It's probably worth looking a little critically at the legacy section thinking about what will stand up as really relevant in a few years, even if it received short-term media coverage.

  Otherwise, I think my only remaining comment is up in "Early life" -- his date of birth is also cited in Obituaries in the Performing Arts, so with the secondary source to confirm it, we don't need the primary source. Vaticidalprophet 10:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's all she wrote. Removed the extra primary source, decided to add some Social Blade sources to the infobox, removed the last two legacy paragraphs for the time being, and made some more slight copy edits. If there's anything else I need to fix, once again, please let me know. Otherwise I hope it's finally ready for GA status! Thank you so much for dedicating time to review this article. I know that Etika's story touched upon sensitive topics, some of which I still struggle to cope with to this day, so I empathize with other editors who may have felt uncomfortable with reviewing the article. That being said, I genuinely appreciate all the advice you've given me throughout this review! :) PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm very happy to pass this. I think in the long term FA is both possible and worthwhile (this would be the first FA on a Youtuber in the project's history, putting aside all the other good reasons it's desired here), but I'll have a lot more to say about getting there later. For now -- congratulations on your first GA, especially on such a complicated topic. Vaticidalprophet 13:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]