"=Is a recent addition NPOV?=== 
 The following text was added in two edits by  made at 21:20 and 21:26 on 22 November 2013: 
 :Industry watchers have noted ""Discussion forums across the Internet are already bursting with outcry against the new comment system. Google+ is nowhere near as popular a social media network as Facebook, but it’s essentially being forced upon millions of YouTube users who don’t want to lose their ability to comment on videos."" 
 - 

  
 I'm left wondering how many and who the ""Industry watchers"" are. The article cited doesn't mention ""Industry watchers"". Is this just the Newsday article's author?  

 While the cited article contains the quote ""Discussion forums across the Internet are already bursting with outcry against the new comment system. ..."", the only discussion forum mentioned in the Newsday article is a Google Groups forum with the title ""How can I stop being forced to join Google+"". That seems more about Google+ than it is about YouTube comments. So I'm also left wondering how many ""discussions forums across the Internet"" are bursting with outcry and if the outcry is about YouTube comments, about Google+, or perhaps the larger issue of Google wanting as many people as possible to be logged in using Google accounts to make it easier to track individual interests and behavior so they can sell more targeted ads? 

 And the cited Newsday article goes on to state: 
 :Perhaps user complaints are justified, but the idea of revamping the old system isn’t so bad. 

 :Think of the crude, misogynistic and racially-charged mudslinging that has transpired over the last eight years on YouTube without any discernible moderation. Isn’t any attempt to curb unidentified libelers worth a shot? The system is far from perfect, but Google should be lauded for trying to alleviate some of the damage caused by irate YouTubers hiding behind animosity and anonymity. 

 Should this view be included in the Wikipedia article? Attributed to ""industry watchers""? 

 The above is my long way of saying that I think this part of the article is getting off-track in terms of its NPOV.    

 =="