Talk:TwoAM

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 23:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Saving my spot for a review! I might be busy these next few days, but I hope to finish my comments soon. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Well-written

Very polished and well-written! Layout looks good and the lead uses summary style. And I think the non-linear structure of the "Background" section is a good way to go about it. I did a small copyedit and only have some minor quibbles:

• I think the "Recorded" and "Written" infobox paramaters are redundant
  • Usually if the recording and writing dates are known, it is included in the infobox (even in obvious cases like this which involve remixing)
    • Good to know!
• Is "2AM" enough of an alternative name to be mentioned in the lead? It is used by some sources and streaming platforms. In that case, I'm not sure if the note about the chart spelling is necessary.
  • I don't know about that. i ruminated on writing the alternative name in the lead before, but (1) most if not all sources that establish notability spell it as "TwoAM", and (2) both names are pronounced exactly the same way, which I'd imagine would confuse/annoy people who rely on screen readers. hence why the note has to spell out the alt. title has "2" in numerals
    • I think that's reasonable
• with whom she had prior contact starting 2011 — "with whom she first met"
• During the time — "During this time"?
• which Drake later referenced in a track from — perhaps, more specifically: "used as a title for a track from"
• completion status — this feels a bit uncommon, perhaps: "completion and release"
  • Done all four
• Are the outro lyrics from "Inside Man"? Either way, I would make this a bit clearer.
  • Isn't "In it, she sings" clear enough ? the snippet is equated with the song
    • I'm reconsidering this, I think the current wording is quite alright. I think I was going for something like: "It shows a snippet of the unreleased SZA song "Inside Man", for which she sings," but I imagine this steps into WP:OR.

Verifiable with no original research

All sources are reliable and formatted fully; WPEG may not be the pinnacle of quality, but its use seems pretty harmless. Nothing goes uncited. Otherwise, great use of paraphrasing; Earwig shows 11.5%, mainly due to the lyrics. I've gone through all the refs and these are my only concerns:

• and tells him that he should go see her instead — this feels like a bit of a leap from the source.
  • "Come and see me for once" is a line present in both songs, so I see no issue with this
    • That's fair
• and she has sex with him in the middle of the night. — where is this from?
  • Removed
• she eventually acknowledges that he values her only for her body — the connotations are there, but I would just say: "he values her only as a 'side chick'".
  • I personally don't like the use of "side chick" here because I think it's a MOS:NOFORCELINK situation - not everyone is slang-savvy enough to know what "side chick" means. I have changed the phrase "for her body" to "for casual sex" (what side chicks are associated with) to be more clear in this regard
    • I like that.

Broad in its coverage

All major aspects of the topic are covered proportionally and with focus. There are some mentions in other sources, but nothing very useful.

Neutral

Opinions are all attributed.

Stable

No recent edit wars or content disputes.

Illustrated

Sufficiently illustrated. The cover is relevant to the topic and its fair use-rationale looks good.

Summary

I'm impressed, ping me once you've adressed everything! Feel free to discuss my comments if you disagree or use something better than my suggestions. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser: thank you so much for the comments and praise! I appreciate the keen eye used in reviewing the entire article. Responded to all comments above ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 07:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies (and the pushback)! I think this means the promotion of another SZA article, good work. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.