Motivation:

Pros:

I was able to piece together very easily what the video was about from the start, and I liked the general idea of what you were aiming to explore, since I think a lot of people - myself included - have played around on Wikipedia and clicked from link to link, so it’s a thought not too far from reach.

Cons:

Honestly, I can’t think of anything negative about the introduction or motivation. Maybe that the topic isn’t very applicable to anything else, however the use of graphs and the general intuition behind it contradict this, and anyway, I’m a strong believer in maths for the sake of maths.

Clarity:

Pros:

You very clearly explained what each definition of centrality was, along with what a graph is in and of itself, and overall it was very well worded.

Cons:

There was one point at 4:42 where you say “it sounds like circular logic” which could’ve used a bit of explanation, but minor improvements like these are all that I can see

Novelty:

Pros:

I really liked the ripped out paper style of things you went for, and whatever software you used for those graphs was incredible, and really made it visually appealing and helped with the explanations you gave.

Cons:

Maybe a bit more variety would help, but sometimes doing 1 style for the whole video is good as well. I don’t think it’d make much of a difference though, as the video is only 15 minutes, so people probably wouldn’t think much of it, and consistency is probably more important anyway

Memorability:

Pros:

I think the explanations were very simple to understand, and alongside the interesting topic choice, this video definitely will stick in many people’s heads. The striking conclusion you come to makes that even more memorable, and it’s one of those sort of shower thoughts that people think about a lot

Cons:

I think maybe if you had a bit more of an aha moment that Grant talks about sometimes would help, or even simply some slightly more detailed maths stuff would’ve been nice to see, but the simplicity of the video does have it’s own value.

Extra thoughts / Choreography:

Pros:

In terms of mic quality, it was perfect, and the overall structure of the video was good. I liked the way you went through the different definitions of what centrality was, and the way in which you used your visuals was very nice

Cons:

All I can say is maybe a little more complexity would’ve been nice, but that might just be a sign for me rather than you.

Final Thoughts:

Sorry if there’s not much advice here. I suppose it’s a testament to your video to say that I struggled to come up with any criticisms! But yes, very well done on a superb video. I really hope you continue to make more.

I liked the pacing overall.

Really nice presentation about graphs and some ways to measure how important are nodes. I think the pacing is good, and the tone is light-hearted. Things are clear, the novel part is the fact about tennis / wrestlers and it’s memorable for that reason as well. The motivation is not very well emphasized: why do we need many of these methods. In what other applications are these measures useful?

Immensely engaging, beautifully (and visually effectively) presented, skillfully structured, clear motivation, high learning value, and distinctly insightful. I especially adored how the video dug into why k-coreness reported mostly tennis players, and the argument is very well justified. One thing the video can benefit from is if it would break down the matrix part a little finer — it will help the viewers follow. Impressive tackle of an advanced topic even a middle schooler can understand. A work of very high standard.

This is a fun premise for some graph algorithms! And also a nice way to relate different metrics to real-world uses, to compare why multiple metrics would even be useful. It was very clear, and I understood the motivation.

To me, it wasn’t a wildly novel concept or presentation. There wasn’t an a-ha moment, just good education. The applied understanding of Wikipedia is fun, but there are plenty of graph videos about networks of people. <— all of this to explain why it’s a “better than most” rating, but not outstanding. Still a very good video.

All in all, great clean presentation, simple explanations, nice applied set dressing over the graph theory. A little quicker intro stronger intro, and a little quicker pace would have put it in outstanding territory for me.

To expand on the pacing. This may be personal to me, but here are the specifics:

It felt very a little slow. The pace of talking is slow but fine - makes it a relaxing watch, which I like. However, I felt the intro, motivation, and background on graphs was too long before getting into the meat of it. A few suggestions:

• a stronger mystery at the beginning (even if you give away the answer… “How did tennis and wrestling come out of that!?”. I think the chill music may have taken away from the strength of that mystery)
• shorter sentences to keep moving through content quicker. Eg. 5:33-5:40 is a looooong sentence to transition into “we’re using pagerank too”. Though I did appreciate the link joke 😀. And 5:30-5:33 “they use pagerank to get you the most relevant search results” is repetitive, since you just described the whole algorithm and said “that’s how Google became successful”. This part felt implied to me.
• rely more on the visuals. You have very clear animations, so don’t need to spell out everything with words. You can say “sometimes the edges have a direction”, change the lines into arrows, and leave it at that. Your visuals are great. Rely on them.

These are all nitpicks, but small examples that added up to an overall feeling of slowness and repetition. Like I said, these are sort of personal though