I disagree, the Veritasium video has way more information than the two videos you linked. It shows how the gamma ray telescopes and gravitational wave detectors worked together to narrow the source in the sky of event. What a gravitational wave signal looks like, what a gamma ray signal looks like. The fact that the optical signal was made 11 hours after that. Etc. There is a lot more info on top of that which makes the video worth watching.
It probably reflects my personal tastes, I understand he's a kind a Youtube star or something, but I find the Veritasium presenter too attention-grabbing distracting, so much that I can't even concentrate to what he is talking about. There is no visible presenter in the Science Mag video, ad I like that, and there is another presenter appearing in the Georgia Tech video (Laura Cadonati, a professor), but there I definitely don't have that "WTH the presenter is demanding more attention than the topic" effect, even if she has an accent.
I surely in this case react just like a "mom" from this comment: "Showed this video with amazing science discoveries about the universe to my mom and all she said was : "this guy likes orange decorations"." I also just see the guy, his appearance, his body movements and his room decorations etc and I just have this "look at me" impression. I can imagine that helps his personal popularity on that medium, and I guess he optimizes for that, but it obscures the actual content, at least to me.
So I don't have energy to analyze it further, but I have had an impression that the videos I've suggested contain some information that doesn't exist in the Veritasium's video, and that the level of the information is better suited for those who need short summary. Maybe there is a target group which, like I, better responds to the videos I've suggested.
For those who are really interested in the details, I think there's no substitute to reading the main scientific paper, written by 4600 people(!):
It is much more accessible than you'd imagine, it starts with:
"Over 80 years ago Baade & Zwicky (1934) proposed the idea of neutron stars, and soon after, Oppenheimer & Volkoff (1939) carried out the first calculations of neutron star models..."
(Yes, it's "the" Oppenheimer, who later go to be called "the father of the atomic bomb." Fritz Zwicky was apparently "the first astronomer to propose the existence of dark matter, supernovas, neutron stars, galactic cosmic rays, gravitational lensing by galaxies, and galaxy clusters.")
Reading the original sources further, the first map of the potential area on the sky and the first trigger that set everything in motion is:
"On 2017 August 17 12:41:06 UTC the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM; Meegan et al. 2009) onboard flight software triggered on, classified, and localized a GRB." My understanding is that it was therefore never technically necessary for Virgo to reject the second (lower) LIGO area on this image:
