To reference a YouTube video in APA, list the uploader as the author, give the upload date, italicize the video title, add [Video], then name YouTube and add the video URL. That is the core form, and it is plain once the parts are set in order.
I keep coming back to the same point: APA treats the uploader as the author, even when that uploader did not make the video itself. That is a useful rule because it gives the reference a clear source name, which is what the reader needs first. The upload date matters too, since video posts can change over time and are often part of a moving stream rather than a fixed print record.
The format is simple in shape. It looks like this: Author or channel name. (Year, Month Day). Title of video [Video]. YouTube. URL. If the uploader has a real name and a channel name, APA guidance allows the name to lead and the channel to follow in brackets when that detail is available. If only the screen name is clear, that name can stand in the author place.
The title goes in italics. The words in the title use sentence case, which means only the first word and proper names are capitalized. The bracketed label [Video] tells the reader what kind of source it is. Then comes YouTube, followed by the direct link to the video.
A small but important detail sits in the author field. If the account that posted the video is not the same as the person who created it, APA says to explain that in the text if it matters to the reader. That is one of those limits that often gets missed. The reference entry can show who posted the file, but not always who made every part of it.
For a cited example, the shape is easier to see than to remember. A reference might read as a channel name, a date, an italic title, the bracketed word Video, YouTube, and the URL. The exact names change, but the order does not.
The one honest limit is that the source itself may be less stable than the citation form. YouTube pages can be renamed, removed, or moved by the uploader. APA gives a clean format for the reference, but it cannot solve those changes. If the page has changed since a reader saw it, the citation still points to the version that was there when the source was used.
I value that plainness. The method does not pretend that every video has neat publication data. It only asks for the pieces that are visible and documented: who uploaded it, when it appeared, what it is called, and where it lives.
That is enough for most cases, and it is enough for careful reading. The Source List keeps that same rule in view: one digital source worth knowing, one search tip, and one honest limitation.