Wikipedia:Peer review/Shirt (song)/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Shirt (song)

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This article was taken to FAC a coupla days ago, with a decision to archive because of some prose issues and a suggestion to take it to peer review. So, here we are. Once this is wrapped up I plan to take this to FAC again. Constructive comments welcome.

Courtesy ping to @SchroCat and @Aoba47 who made the recommendations.

Thanks, PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 01:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

Thank you for the ping. Once my comments from the FAC are addressed, I will take a look through the article. Best of luck with the peer review and the future FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I will attend to this come Sunday. PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 02:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. Take as much time as you need as there is absolutely no rush. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: so, I have (hopefully) addressed your concerns from the FAC, sans one - re. live performances, I don't think I can find a way to seamlessly incorporate mentions of them in the lead, plus their coverage does not comprise a significant portion of the article [compare with Kill Bill (SZA song)]. with most of those out of the way, I look forward to more of your comments.
Thank you for the message. Unfortunately, I cannot continue my review as I plan on taking a break from reviews for a bit. Sorry for that. Aoba47 (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have looped back around to this peer review to post some comments. I hope that they are helpful.

  • I believe this part, about a toxic relationship, one that consumes SZA lustfully, could be condensed to "about a toxic relationship that consumes SZA". Also, is "lustfully" needed? It could be cut to be more concise?
    • Cut
  • Could you explain this part, deep introspection to achieve perfection, for me? I am not quite sure I get what it means. I have the same question for this part, deep introspection to realize one's self-worth and perfection.
    • The relevant lyrics are "Still don't know my worth, still stressing perfection / Let you all in my mental, got me looking too desperate" . I have split the offending sentence in the lead to "themes present throughout SOS: deep introspection, the pursuit of perfection, and the...", and the offending sentence in the prose to "deep introspection and the realization of one's self-worth and perfection" .
  • This sentence seems off to me: After being first previewed online two years ago, the song was released on October 28, 2022. I think it is the "two years ago" word choice, and I think it would be clearer to just say the year as done in something like "After being first previewed online in 2020".
    • I suppose it was the fact I used "ago" instead of "beforehand". "In 2020" is an improvement, but the vibes are still off with that one, so I went with "beforehaand"
  • This part, Symbolism is a major element of the video, seems unnecessary to me. It is rare that symbolism plays a minor element in a story, and it would be better to focus on the latter half of the sentence, which discusses what is in the video.
    • Cut
  • For this part, her first solo single in five years, in September, I would include the year by saying "in September 2020" to clarify the timeline of the releases a bit more explicitly for readers.
    • Done
  • I am unsure about the placement of "Good Days" in the article. The prose goes from SZA sharing an unreleased song ("Shirt") to her releasing a different single ("Good Days") and then back to "Shirt" at the start of a new paragraph. I wonder if this could be structured in a clearer way. For instance, I was initially confused by this sentence, The song SZA teased in October did not have a title, so fans started calling it by two names, "Bloodstain" and "Shirt"., as the last sentence was about "Good Days". I could just be over-thinking it though.
    • To be honest, I don't see an issue with it.
      • My primary concern was the prose jumping between different songs, but I could very well just be overthinking it. It would be best to wait and see how other reviewers react to it as it could be clear and completely okay for a FAC/FA in its current format. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence seems a bit overly wordy to me: Her future videos would feature the same creative decision of teasing upcoming music at the outro. I get this from the "same creative decision" part in particular. I think something like "Her future videos would also tease upcoming music at the outro" is more concise without losing anything.
    • Trimmed, with my own rewrite
  • I have a question about this part, Religious and mythological concepts are invoked. I get how religion is invoked in the song with its lyrics about sin, but are there any examples for the mythology part?
    • Darkness is mentioned in the prose; that is a motif in several mythologies like Zoroastrianism
      • The "mythological concepts" word choice is supported in the citation, but I was curious if there was any way to expand upon on it. Darkness is not a concept that is restricted to mythology so I did not connect that back to it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoiding having "finished"/"finishing" in this sentence as it is repetitive: The song was still being finished by January 2021, and finishing it became one of SZA's only priorities at the time.
    • Done
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: In December, SZA released "I Hate U", the second single from SOS after "Good Days". Was "Hit Different" not considered a single for this album?
  • For this sentence, As she revealed at Austin City Limits two days later, the release was postponed because she was dissatisfied with "one small thing" about the upcoming music video., I am not sure the venue or exact day that this was discussed is absolutely necessary to include the prose. I would also clarify the "she" here is SZA as the last person discussed was Doja Cat.
    • Done the second one, but for the first one, I think there is no harm in specifying when and where the announcement happened. It makes for a more engaging narrative
      • It is not a major issue. It seemed a tad trivial to me, but I have also done similar things myself, in putting where an interview was published in the prose, so I can understand your point of view about it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something about this part, with Doja Cat nowhere on the song, seems too informal for Wikipedia. I would say something like "without Doja Cat on the song" to avoid that.
    • Changed
  • I have a question about this sentence: The song was originally not going to be on the album, but fans' positive response towards it prompted her and label executives to change their mind. Is there any further context on why it was almost excluded from the album?
    • She told People magazine, "Sometimes what I like doesn't line up with other people and that is tricky, always tricky." Added that quotation
  • I am uncertain about the "main point" word choice in this sentence: Songwriting was a main point of praise towards "Shirt". It is always good to have topic sentences in the reception sections, but I would think that a claim that something was the primary or main focus of reviews would need a citation to back it up.
    • Changed to "recurring"
  • I think this part, liked what they saw was a frenzied and animalistic tone in SZA's thoughts, reads awkwardly. I get what you mean, but it could be worded better.|
    • Rewritten to "praised some of the lyrics for their, in their view, frenzied and animalistic tone"
  • Could you clarify what the focus of the second paragraph of the "Critical reception" section is for me? It is not as directly obvious to me as with the other paragraphs in this section.
    • As the topic sentence says, it's about the song's emotional intensity
  • I am uncertain about the note at the end of this sentence: It also reached the top 20 in South Africa, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada, and Australia. All of the other charts are cited here, except for these. I get that it would be a pain, but why not do something like the first note and include the countries and citations?
    • Fair enough
  • Sorry if this is obvious, but for this part, SZA then kills the man for his mistake., was the "mistake" in question the fact that the man interrupted them?
    • Yeah don't worry about it; I think that could've been clearer
  • I think "drops dead" in this part, shooting her shadow until it drops dead, may be a bit too informal for Wikipedia, and I think something like "until it dies" would be a better substitute.
    • I agree
  • The "Live performances" section seems quite short, and I wonder if it would be best to combine it with a different section.
    • Yes, it is short indeed. I don't know about the merits of merging though, because the section is not that short, plus there seems to be nowhere in the Release section where placing this paragraph could fit.
  • This part, during a collaboration with vodka company Grey Goose Essences for the "In Bloom" concert in promotion of their recent line of vodka, seems overly wordy, and I believe it could be made more concise.
    • Trimmed
  • I am not sure if the fact that SZA debut "Blind" on SNL is relevant to this article. It is not really about this song, aside from "Blind being at the end of the music video, and that seems like a stretch to include it.
    • On second thought, yeah, we can do away with that line
  • Was there any further information or reviews on her live performances of the song, such as on the SOS Tour or at Glastonbury 2024?
    • No, not really. I think the relevant reviews are best left for the articles on the tour and festival, because the focuses are less on the song and more on her shows.
      • That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. I know that sometimes individual songs in a concert or a larger performance do not really get individual attention at times. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I hope that these comments are helpful. I am very much an unfamiliar reader when it comes to this article, which in my opinion is a good thing, as I have not listened to this song or to any of SZA's music. You have put a lot of great work in this article, and best of luck with this peer review and the future FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is always a pleasure to work with you, @Aoba47. I am glad you've gotten back into the right headspace to review. I have replied to all of your comments. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 04:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. I have left some replies above. It is always a pleasure to work with you as well, and I hope you are having a great day/night so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyquism

Marking my territory; I'm here because I was previously requested to take a look at the FAC listing. Should get to this sometime this weekend. joeyquism (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna get this done today, as I have a busier weekend than I had anticipated. Below are some comments regarding the prose:

Lead

  • "Co-produced by Darkchild, it is an R&B song, with elements of trap music, that is backed by synthesizers and 808 beats." - Unnecessary commas around "with elements of trap music"; additionally, "that is" can be replaced with "and".
    • "with elements of trap music" is meant to be an appositive, so I have kept the commas. I have removed "that is" altogether
  • "...despite its leaving her directionless and mentally exhausted." - I get the gerundical use of "leaving" here, though wouldn't omitting "its" provide the same meaning?
    • The grammar gets wonky - technically, with the current use of punctuation, the phrase becomes a participle (not a gerund, which refers to a form of noun) that describes "lyrics", not "relationship". I have rewritten the sentence to get around this predicament.
  • "'Shirt' was a top-20 song in a few countries..." - This is mostly nitpicking, though I would substitute "in a few" for "in multiple" here. "Few" sells its performance rather short (i.e. I'm inclined to contextualize its performance negatively upon hearing "few"), compared to "multiple", which is both true and more neutral.
    • Sometimes nitpicks make sense 🤷‍♂️

Background

  • "Primarily an R&B album that deals with themes like heartbreak" - Wikilink "heartbreak" to broken heart?
  • "Regarding the fan-given names, SZA had posted on Twitter two months prior to say that she was fine with having "Shirt" as a title, and she eventually picked it as the song's official name." - Do you think this would be better placed after the first sentence of the paragraph it's in, albeit with different wording (perhaps "In a tweet posted in January 2021, SZA acknowledged the fan-given names and stated...")? A chronology should be maintained in order to tell a more engaging story.
    • Fixed

Music and production

  • "It was produced by Darkchild and Freaky Rob." - Wikilink Darkchild here, as it's far enough from the lead to warrant another link. Also, would it be worth it to explain who Freaky Rob is, given that he doesn't have a wiki page? The source cited describes him as "the producer/guitarist Freaky Rob."
    • Ummmm there's already a Darkchild link in Background. furthermore, there would be no need to introduce Freaky Rob as a producer/guitarist when the sentence already says he produced the song.
  • "...many commercially successful R&B singles from the 1990s had Darkchild as a producer..." - Another nitpick, but I feel that "featured" or "listed" would be more effective than "had" here.
    • Mm, I'm good

Lyrics

  • "Aisha Harris of NPR Music argued that "Shirt" contains lyrics that best represent the themes and messages of SOS" - I feel as if "argued" is not the right word here; the use of "said" or "wrote" (or something akin to either) here would be more applicable. "Argued" suggests that there's direct contention against her statement here. Alternatively, you could switch some paragraphs here to keep this wording (particularly the first and second) or combine this paragraph with the second. Not sure if my logic is coming off coherently here, so feel free to pick my mind further or tell me off about this.
  • "A dark and furious tone also manifests in the song, to contrast the vulnerability critics wrote was characteristic of SZA's music." - Replace "to contrast" with "in contrast to"; also, as someone who seldom listens to lyrics (a rather shoddy fault of mine), are these characterizations of vulnerability with regards to past releases or the other songs on SOS?

Release

  • "In a November Billboard cover story, SZA revealed the album's title as well as its release date, which was scheduled sometime next month." - The "sometime next month" part reads a bit strangely. I wouldn't say it's a violation of MOS:RELTIME, as most readers would assumedly be able to ascertain that "next month" in this case means December 2022, but "scheduled for the following month" could provide the same effect without toeing the line of compliance.
    • Changed to "scheduled for next month"

Critical reception

  • "Some appreciated its vivid lyrics; it was one of the compliments Julienne Pal Loreto from The Line of Best Fit gave the song, which they wrote made it SOS's standout track and worth the two-year wait." - Wording is a bit windy here, and there's an instance of WP:WIKIVOICE in the inclusion of the phrase "vivid lyrics". Perhaps "Some appreciated its lyrics; Julienne Pal Loreto from The Line of Best Fit complimented them as vivid, and wrote that they made it..." could be an alternative way of writing this.
    • Had my own idea of changing this
  • "Also writing about that emotional intensity" is a bit confusing; are these expansions upon points made by previously-mentioned authors? If so, this clause could be amended to be something like "Expanding upon [Author]'s points regarding the song's emotional intensity..." Additionally, I noticed that the spelling of the first name of Pitchfork's Herrera differs between the citation and the prose; it should be "Isabelia".
    • Good catch w the typo . re. first point, I changed it to "Ashley Pointer for NPR Music and Isabelia Herrera for Pitchfork also wrote about the song's emotional intensity. The two believed that with 'Shirt'..."

Commercial performance

  • No major issues with prose that I could identify.

Music video

  • "directed by Dave Meyers" would probably go better in the second sentence, as the first pertains mostly to the song's music video premiere rather than the stylistic and technical aspects.
  • "Starring her and LaKeith Stanfield, the video follows the two..." - I'm not sure of the effect of "starring her", and this could be more concisely worded. This is a bit of a rough rephrasing, but could "The video follows SZA alongside LaKeith Stanfield as they..." be acceptable here?
  • "This act, in the views of CJ Thorpe-Tracey, visually conveyed what SOS was about in a nutshell." - Could be better worded as "According to CJ Thorpe-Tracey [maybe include "of The Quietus here too?], this act visually conveyed..." Also, the use of "in a nutshell" is an instance of WP:IDIOM; "overall" should suffice.
    • All should be addressed

Live performances

  • No major issues with prose that I could identify.

I hope that these comments were thorough, though I apologize if they came off as pedantic. As always, you are at liberty to reject my suggestions with justification, and are free to ask questions regarding my comments if any should arise. Hope you've had a great week so far, and I look forward to your responses here (as well as on my FAC - I hope I'm not pestering you too much about this). joeyquism (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyquism: replies above. don't sweat too much about seeming nitpicky; why else are we at PR, GAN, or FAC :) Elias (PSA) 🏕️🪐 | [please make some noise] 10:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking forever to get back to this. I'd say it looks much better now; I wouldn't have any further comments here. Nice work! joeyquism (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Shirt_(song)/archive1&oldid=1236412330"