Talk:Rickrolling

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rickrolling/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 02:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 01:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

It's been a while since I did a GA review, but this is a topic I love and I couldn't help but pick up the review when I saw it was nominated. I will try to get this complete in the standard 7 day review window but may need a bit more time as real life has been consistently busy for me lately. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I am satisfied the prose meets the minimum requirements for GA status; a few minor issues have been resolved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No concerns remaining for this part of the criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References format is fairly standard and there are no issues here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Article has sufficient inline citations to meet GA standards. As for the sources themselves, I am satisfied they meet GA's requirements. Sources are generally contemporary and retrospective coverage in news media along with some academic sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   As verified by the source check. Claims in the article are predominantly sourced to secondary sources which verify them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Basic earwig check pulled up attributed quotations and "Never Gonna Give You Up", but no actual copyright issues. The sources I reviewed in full for the source check did not have any instances where material in the Wikipedia article was copied or closely paraphrased. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Having engaged with the article more and read several of the sources, I am satisfied with the breadth of coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No concerns in this area, after a few reads of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   From my initial readthrough of the entire article, I did not detect any issues here. Viewpoints are attributed where appropriate and I don't see any bias in the way subjects are covered or the prose itself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Noting that the article has indefinite semi-protection since an experiment with pending changes proved unsuccessful and was terminated by an administrator in November 2025. Since then the article history has been stable, so I'm assessing a pass for this criterion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   There are three non-free use elements: a screenshot of the video from YouTube, an audio sample, and an image of the duckroll meme that was a precursor to rickrolling. I've reviewed all three and they meet the non-free use requirements. All three are directly relevant to the subject and the creation of a free equivalent is not possible. The remaining images are compatibly licensed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are relevant and have proper captions. My only suggestion is to supply alt text for images that lack it, but that is not a requirement for GA status and I will mark this criterion as met. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I have no further comments and this article is ready for GA. Thank you for your hard work! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Prose comments

Lead:

• I was a little surprised to see the audio sample skips between two parts of the song. Is there a specific reason for this, and should it be mentioned in the sample's description?
  • Not sure, the audio sample was added in 2010 and there doesn't appear to be a specific reason. Do you think I should replace it with a different sample? (It might make more sense for the sample to be the song's opening, since it's discusssed in the article.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
    • I'd say having the sample start right at the very beginning of the song would be best, capturing that telltale drum intro and opening melody which is the first sign someone has been Rickrolled. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
      • Another idea I've had: would it make sense to use a video? Non-free video clips are allowed when motions are relevant, so a video could be used to illustrate the awkward dancing that is discussed in the article. Do you think this would be an acceptable justification for a non-free video? If so, I will replace both the audio and the screenshot with a video clip. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
        • Honestly, I'm not familiar enough with NFCC to give you a definitive answer either way. Maybe this is a question for WT:NFCC? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
          • Using an audio sample of the opening for now. Will discuss this with others later. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Please be consistent with capitalizing or not capitalizing the word "internet".
  • Capitalized throughout.
• Use of rickrolling declined after 2008 in the lead seems to contradict Rickrolling continued to be popular after its peak in 2008, lasting much longer than other memes in the body.
  • I don't think it's contradictiory. Rickrolling became less popular than it used to be, but still popular. Let me know if you think there's a better way to phrase it. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Maybe revise to say that it peaked in 2008 but continued to be popular for years after? I agree the sources show a 2008 peak in popularity, I just think the existing lead doesn't capture the enduring popularity 2009 onward. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
      • Rephrased as Use of rickrolling peaked in 2008, but it remained popular. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Videos inspired by rickrolling included "BarackRoll", by Hugh Atkin, which remixed the song with footage of Barack Obama This sentence is somewhat jarring in the lead, as you would expect at least one more example to be included. I recommend either adding one or more additional examples or just saying that rickrolling inspired copycat videos. An easy solution is to mention there were two BarackRoll videos.
  • Rephrased to state that rickrolling inspired videos, with BarackRoll as a specific example.. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Later perpetrators of the prank included... the Oregon Legislative Assembly in 2010 This should really say "members of the Oregon Legislative Assembly" as the current wording implies it was an official act of the entire assembly rather than the initiative of individual members rickrolling their colleagues.
  • Done.

Body:

• I find linking the song in that see also template when the song is linked directly below the template to be rather pointless; I recommend removing it from the template. In contrast, the links to internet meme and 4chan are more helpful since they aren't immediately introduced in this section.
  • Changed the link from Never Gonna Give You Up to Rick Astley#Career
• became known as outdated It's not immediately clear if this was contemporary reception or at a later point, can you specify?
  • Rephrased to its 1980s style fell out of fashion. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• I suggest a brief mention that Astley retired due to losing interest in continuing his career and to focus on family and friends.
  • Added. (I don't think it's really that relevant, but it's mentioned in sources about rickrolling so it's worth including.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• I suggest linking Dennis for the benefit of people unfamiliar with IASIP.
  • Done.
• April Fools' Day strongly contributed to the meme's popularity; has a grammatical issue as a paragraph shouldn't end with a semicolon like that.
  • Fixed.
• some people within the online subculture considered it to be the end of rickrolling begs the question of who? The 2008 Fox News article has relevant commentary from moot that would help fill in this gap.
  • Added Moot's commentary. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• words spoken from Obama should be "words spoken by Obama".
  • Fixed.
• According to Vernallis comes out of nowhere as there has been no introduction of who this is. The only other instance this name shows up is in the references where I can see you're referring to Carol Vernallis, but the prose should use both her full name and some sort of descriptor of who she is.
  • Fixed.
• Please be consistent on uppercasing or lowercasing rickroll(ing).
  • The only capitalized uses are in direct quotes. MOS:PMC says to preserve capitalization in quotations. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• The video intended to promote the channel should be "the video was intended to promote the channel".
  • Done.
• I recommend specifying that Jefferson Smith was a representative at the time.
  • Done.
• The earliest version of the video on YouTube had been uploaded to YouTube by Cotter when the meme began Use "was" instead of "had been".
  • Done.
• introducing a new group of fans This sentence needs a little more context that rickrolling introduced a new group of fans to his music.
  • Done.

That's all I have for the moment on prose comments. I will still need to complete a source check. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Spotchecks

I generally do spotchecks by selecting references that are the most used in the article, as opposed to a random selection.

• "An Oral History of Rickrolling", Mel Magazine: easily the most used reference in this article.
  • First footnote, verifies the song was written by Stock Aitken Waterman.
  • Fourth footnote, doesn't explicitly state the British Singles Chart but verifies that the song was the #1 hit in the U.K. for 1987, so close enough.
    • If I'm not mistaken, the British Singles Chart is the only chart that people are referring to when they say "#1 hit in the UK". If that's not the case, I'll edit it. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Seventh footnote, verifies that the song became dated quickly due to its strong 80's sound and placement on the VH1 list of "most awesomely bad songs ever".
  • Tenth footnote, verifies the popularity of bait-and-switch humor on 4chan.
  • Thirteenth footnote, verifies the history of how duckroll came into existence on 4chan.

Going to consider this source a pass.

• "The Biggest Little Internet Hoax on Wheels Hits Mainstream", Fox News:
  • Third footnote, verifies the GTA IV Rickroll occurring.
  • Fifth footnote, verifies 25 million views by date of publication (April 2008).
  • Sixth footnote, verifies Astley's initial reaction to Rickrolling and his characterization of it as "bizarre".
  • Seventh footnote, verifies the statement from Astley's spokesperson that "I'm sorry, but he's done talking about Rickrolling".

Pass for this source.

• "The song behind one of the most enduring internet memes turns 30", ABC News Australia:
  • First footnote, verifies the song was on Astley's first album Whenever You Need Somebody.
  • Third footnote, verifies the song as being dance-pop.
  • Fourth footnote, verifies that Rickrolling began to show up in Google search trends in May 2007.
  • Tenth footnote, verifies the quote "As long as the trolls are still trolling, the Rick will never stop rolling".

Pass for this source.

Overall, a pass for the spotchecks. I did not identify any failed verification issues or copyright issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)