Talk:Speed Me Up/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 22:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jonathan Deamer (talk · contribs) 16:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ![]() Have made some additional copy edits along the way. Think we're good on this criterion now. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
![]() |
2b. 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). |
Some of the discussion below has addressed additional points, so marking this as OK. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | ![]()
Some of the discussion below has addressed additional points, so marking this as OK. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig OK, source spot checks OK. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Having read Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, this article's sources, and searched for additional sources, I'm assured that the main aspects that can be reliably sourced are covered here. (In particular, there doesn't seem to be any RS coverage of chart performance, which I would otherwise expect in a song article.) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Appropriately links to articles on the film, characters etc. instead of including detail here. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Only normal incremental improvements for a couple of weeks now. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Meets WP:NFCC and rationale is included on image page. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No additional caption necessary above what's included in infobox per MOS:CAPLENGTH. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | An appropriately short article that addresses the main aspects of the topic. A handful of important improvements to sourcing were made as part of the review. I enjoyed the nostalgia of digging into this topic, and listening to a fun new-to-me song in the process. Thanks to @Tails Wx for the collaboration, and congrats on a Good Article! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC) |
Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pausing now. Back tomorrow to continue review. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Jonathan Deamer, thanks for taking up the review! I've made a few changes per your comments so far – feel free to check that out. ~ Tails Wx 01:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Tails Wx You're welcome - thanks for introducing me to this cool track! I've given some further feedback on 2c, above. Keeping 1a/1b/2b as is for now, as I think they'll be affected by changes in response to the 2c feedback. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jonathan Deamer! I've implemented changes based on your feedback, with a couple of notes:
- Removed all information based on the YouTube source; removed that itself as well
- The song's definitely in the film, it's just in the credits of the film. But obviously I can't be used as a source... Rolling Stone does say that the song is featured in the film, so I've noted it there for now.
- Added the lineup of the singers to the "Background" section here – let me know if this is not quite what's supposed to be implemented!
- I think I've addressed everything now. And it is a super good song! :) ~ Tails Wx 18:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Tails Wx Thanks! I've tweaked the lead a little further based on your clarification RE: appearance in the film. Please check if you agree.
- This would be a useful addition to the "reception" section, from Deadline: "Other online marketing highlights of the Sonic campaign included the original song “Speed Me Up” by Wiz Khalifa, Ty Dolla $ign, Lil Yachty and Sueco the Child which has clocked over 15M streams, propelled by a TikTok Challenge launch that was timed to the single’s release, churning 1.8 billion views overall."
- A few of the sources talk about this as a join track between the four artists. Is there a source that it's Wiz featuring the others, as opposed to an equal collab?
- I think the fact that you're calling one of them a rapper and others singers also remains unclear. Sources seem to refer to them all as rappers. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Jonathan Deamer: I think it looks good! I've implemented the changes here. ~ Tails Wx 21:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Tails Wx Thanks, I think that's all the feedback addressed! Nothing more for you to do at this stage, but as this is my first GA review I'm asking for an additional set of eyes to check I haven't missed anything. Will give this a couple more days and then finalise/formalise. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Jonathan Deamer: I think it looks good! I've implemented the changes here. ~ Tails Wx 21:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jonathan Deamer! I've implemented changes based on your feedback, with a couple of notes:
- @Tails Wx You're welcome - thanks for introducing me to this cool track! I've given some further feedback on 2c, above. Keeping 1a/1b/2b as is for now, as I think they'll be affected by changes in response to the 2c feedback. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Jonathan Deamer, thanks for taking up the review! I've made a few changes per your comments so far – feel free to check that out. ~ Tails Wx 01:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)