Talk:Speed Me Up

Speed Me Up 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: January 24, 2025. (Reviewed version).

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.

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

A fact from Speed Me Up appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 January 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the music video of "Speed Me Up" was described as "incredibly dumb" and a "cornucopia of hilarious imagery"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Speed Me Up.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 03:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that all four singers of "Speed Me Up" appear in the music video of it as 16-bit versions of themselves and take part in adventures with Sonic? Source: The A.V. Club, The Verge
- ALT1: ... that the music video of "Speed Me Up" was described as "incredibly dumb" and a "cornucopia of hilarious imagery"? Source: The A.V. Club
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tilaluha

Created by Tails Wx (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 27 past nominations.

~ Tails Wx 01:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The only paragraph not cited is the music video summary which should be okay per MOS:PLOTCITE. No concerns for copyvio, any direct quotes are attributed and cited.

The IMDb user rating in the reception section needs to be removed per WP:IMDB since it's user generated content.

Everything else appears to be okay, Alt 1 reads as more interesting to me just because I feel that "16-bit" in ALT0 may disinterest non-technical readers. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Nominator: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 22:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jonathan Deamer (talk · contribs) 16:11, 17 January 2025 (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.	I've boldly made some minor CE changes for clarity. Only remaining issue to improve is the sentence "Produced by Take a Daytrip, it was released by the label Atlantic Records for the film Sonic the Hedgehog and as part of its soundtrack on January 24, 2020." It's not clear if this means there was a single release and a soundtrack album release on the same day, 24th Jan, or whether the song was released on 24th Jan and included on a seperate soundtrack release. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Done[reply] 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)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Words to watch: Fine, made a quick fix per MOS:EUPHEMISM. Layout: Per MOS:OVERSECTION, the "live performances" heading may be excessive for a single sentence. I'd suggest including the two final sentences from the "music video" section (which are actually about the lyrics, not the video) here and changing the section name to "lyrics". Done Fiction: The music video synopsis is essentially a plot summary; MOS:FICTIONPLOT is adhered to (treating the video as a primary source without need for inline citations). Appropriate use of narrative present. List incorporation: n/a. ~~On hold for layout fix.~~ Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Done[reply] Lead: MOS:FIRST, MOS:LEADCITE, MOS:INTRO fine. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
	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).	~~WP:ALLMUSIC: "Editors also advise against using AllMusic's genre classifications from the website's sidebar." This source isn't used for anything else, so should be removed.~~ Done The Next Web: no consensus per WP:RSP, but only used for direct quotes of source itself, so OK. Similar for Game Rant source. As mentioned above, music video synopsis is a plot summary and so does not need inline citations. ~~"Wiz Khalifa singles chronology" in infobox is not sourced and there are not articles for these releases (ie. it's not a navigational aid). Should be removed.~~ Done Recording date in infobox was unsourced. I have removed this. I struggled to verify the songwriters info with the Apple Music source, but confirmed it is indeed there :) Some of the discussion below has addressed additional points, so marking this as OK. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~On hold until "Wiz Khalifa singles chronology" is corrected (see above).~~ Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Done[reply] It looks like the sentence "The music video for the song was released on January 23, 2020, with the song being released a day later by Atlantic Records." fails verification. Apple Music gives the song's release date as Jan 24. YouTube shows me the date the video was uploaded to be Jan 24 (maybe it adjusts to local timezone?), but either way YouTube is not a reliable source so should not be used like this. The Rolling Stone source (at least the archived version I can access) doesn't give a date. I'd suggest just saying "The song was released on Jan 24 by Atlantic Records" unless you can find a better source. Done The point about YouTube views, in the body and lead, is only supported by YouTube itself. YouTube isn't a reliable source, and I don't think there's consensus on an exception for view counts. Could you please find a better source or remove this? Done In the lead "for the film Sonic the Hedgehog and as part of its soundtrack" is still unclear to me. Is it actually in the film? At least one source refers to it as a promotional track. The article for the score album you link to doesn't list the track as included. Can I suggest you include a cited sentence in the "background" section that addresses this? It can then be easily summarised in the lead. Done Why is Wiz a "rapper" in the lead while his collaborators are "singers"? Again, maybe more in the "background" section with a cite could address this. "Sees each collaborator taking on their own verse" from Uproxx is the most detail I've been able to find on each collaborator's role. This is possibly personal preference, but an explicit cite of the track's lineup in this section might also be good. ~~On hold for these points to be addressed.~~ Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Done[reply] Some of the discussion below has addressed additional points, so marking this as OK. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig OK, source spot checks OK. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
	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)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	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)[reply]
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)[reply]
	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)[reply]
	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)[reply]

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pausing now. Back tomorrow to continue review. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Jonathan Deamer: I think it looks good! I've implemented the changes here. ~ Tails Wx 21:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]