Jump to content

Talk:212 (song)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 09:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Heartfox (talk · contribs) 15:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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.
  • "also produced" → "also" is superfluous
  • "Pitchfork placed it at number nine on their Top 100 Tracks of 2011" → why is this in the second paragraph and not the first?
  • "released... at a total length of" doesn't make sense
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • "As noted by James McNally" → WP:WTW
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.
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).
  • pronounced "two-one-two" → would benefit from a ref
  • recorded in 2011 → not seeing this supported in the prose
  • RS Australia are all US articles and should be cited to original source
  • Slate called it a "dance-rap track" and Pitchfork said it is "rap" → why are these perspectives omitted?
  • The genres in the infobox are identified as only influences in the prose?
  • "written at a moderate tempo" → not supported by source, "pounding along" doesn't indicate a "moderate tempo"
  • McNally article needs specific pages cited not just the whole range and the quote needs a ref directly after it.
  • "according to The Guardian" → the author should be specified
  • "He ranked it number two" → the list isn't his
  • UK "Digital download" and "Polydor" isn't supported by the ref
  • rhythmic contemporary radio ref is dead/doesn't like to right archived version
2c. it contains no original research.
  • I'm not sure "encapsulates the way the current US explosion in “EDM” (Electronic Dance Music) has adapted and adopted European rave, mixing the style with hip-hop and R&B stylistic tics" meets WP:EXPLICITGENRE. This doesn't really specify it as an "an electronic dance track".
  • "her desire for" → not seeing that this about her desire
  • ""212" has received widespread acclaim from critics." → five critics are cited. This does not seem enough to support the statement "widespread acclaim" without a secondary source summarizing the opinion as "widespread acclaim".
  • "The music video has been widely praised" → again, there's only 3 sources and no secondary ref supporting "widely praised". It's one thing to use "received positive reviews" as a summary of the reviews cited, but to say something has been "widely praised" is more of an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that requires a ref itself.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • "In the finale, the beat evolves gradually before breaking down into a blend of altered synths" → This is a little close to the source text "For the finale, the beat mutates again, ramping up slowly before disintegrating in a mass of tweaked synths" and seems long enough to be better paraphrased
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • "widely praised"
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
  • The infobox pic is attributed to the uploader's "own work" with an "unknown date" and "unknown author" → this can be improved/fixed
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Best, Heartfox (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]