Talk:212 (song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 212 (song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

212 (song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 29, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Hip-hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in hip-hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in hip-hop, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Women in hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Women in hip-hopWomen in hip-hop
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:212 (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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]

@Heartfox: thoughts now? 750 h+ 07:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. Further comments:

"The song's lyrics describes Banks' having lesbian sex" - which source says the lyrics are about Banks personally doing so?
"fuses" - this is synthesis. different opinions cannot be combined to say they form one
I would split the critical reception paragraph as 12+ sentences makes it harder to understand. Could start with 2019.
16 and 17 are the same ref
not seeing "electro-house" in source
Dance-rap link seems incorrect
rap could be added to infobox
AllAccess url-status=dead

Best, Heartfox (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: thanks for the review. Thoughts now? 750 h+ 23:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: 750 h+ 11:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: Looks good, promoted. If you are interested, I do have an open FAC and GAN. Best, Heartfox (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll see what I can do. Thanks for the review. 750 h+ 23:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]