Wikipedia:Peer review/Kill Bill (SZA song)/archive1

Kill Bill (SZA song)

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

Hi! Following my PR of Snooze (song) and its recent entry at FAC, I'd like to put this down the PR-to-FAC pipeline next. It's disorganized at the moment and the prose is stilted occasionally, so feel free to be a little harsher than usual Thanks, Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 12:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dxneo

Hello mate, again I saw this just now when I was just making rounds on the site. I see you got "Snooze" on Fac, I'll check it out after this. Oh by the way, I also got an open FAC, I'd appreciate it if you gave it 2 minutes of your time. Damn! That remix cover is amazing.

Don't you think it would be good to add a sort key to eliminate the redirects? Not sure if there's a guidelines for this, just a suggestion.
- Apologies but I do not think I understand what you mean.

Irony is a common word, why is it linked?
- Fair

Cover art of the "Kill Bill" remix: SZA on a ~~travelling~~ motorcycle, wearing a black and red jumpsuit

I also noticed that the release date(s) don't come first in both, the lead and Release section. I understand the Release, but the lead?
- Can you reword in a way I can better understand?

where she first performed "Kill Bill" live. Was it ever performed "not" live?
- Hmmm good point

I don't think "Refer to caption" is the okay for alt text. Why not just copy and paste? I'm also concerned about how you write these alt texts, the non-free alts were fine, but as for something like "SZA performing in 1991", I think it's better to describe what the image depicts. Thoughts?
- the relevant advice given is that "Where the caption is sufficiently descriptive or evocative of the image, or where it makes clear what the function of the image is, one option is to write |alt=refer to caption." As mentioned in the previous PR, we defer to context and purpose when writing alt text, so I think this is fine. By the way, I don't know where the 1991 came from.

This is a single from SOS. The first paragraph on Background defines another body of work. How's that relevant to the subject?
- I get the emphasis on focus, so I did away with the second paragraph entirely. The first paragraph, however, functions as a prelude of sorts; other FACs on SOS songs passed with this kind of structure. The article provides context for the song's music and lyrics by establishing that this type of musical style is a pattern for her.

One of the tracks from the album, named SOS, is titled "Kill Bill". Can you tweak this a little. Something about "… from the album named SOS, is titled" Kill Bill"" doesn't really sound good.

It gets its name from the Kill Bill films ===> It was named after Kill Bill films
- I don't vibe with the "named after" phrase here; I hope the compromise I have provided in the article addresses the two comments directly above this reply.

The plot centers on Beatrix "the Bride" Kiddo and her plans to murder Bill, head of the enemy Deadly Viper assassins of which she was a past member. Bill was a former love interest who failed to have Kiddo killed on the day of her wedding. I think trimming this paragraph would help as it is diving way into the movie and going off topic. Just a suggestion.

Wait, this Background is about everything but the song. The last paragraph is also about the movie plot or something, and not about how the song came about. Why is that?
- Agreed with both. I did my best at trimming extraneous film details and leaving only the stuff we see reflected in the song's lyrics.

And these are short paragraphs, why not join/merge them?
- I don't think they're that short.

Will Dukes of Rolling Stone wrote the "eerie chords [exuded] modish late-Sixties cool". ===> Will Dukes of Rolling Stone wrote that the "eerie chords [exuded] modish late-Sixties cool".

SZA told Glamour in 2022 that many tracks in SOS ===> SZA told Glamour in 2022 that many tracks on SOS

During a Billboard cover story published in November The dates mentioned before and after have years but not this one, why?

RCA and Top Dawg sent the song to US pop,[56][57] rhythmic,[58] and urban radio[59] on January 10, 2023, as the fifth single from SOS. Why are RCA, rhythmic and Top Dawg not written in full since this isn't the lead, and why is the whole paragraph not wiki linked?

What does buoyed mean? LOL I seriously didn't know and I study literature and linguistics. Is there a way you can replace the word with a more common word or just wiki link it?

Bolstered? Okay, I'm learning new words here. Careful though, not everyone is from the US or the UK.

Commercial performance: Why not sub-section the first three paragraphs under In the United States and the remaining under Elsewhere or Globally? Spending 8 weeks on #2 then later reach #1 is insane. She's amazing.

Ref28 (website) is not wiki linked.

Ref30, Rolling Stone Music Now is not a website, Rolling Stone is the website/magazine.

Ref36, digital syndication is not necessary.

Ref57, 58, and 59, not familiar with the website, but I do think the website is All Access, not All Access Music Group. (not sure about this)

Ref282, website name is Radio Airplay.

That's all I got for now. One thing I noticed is that most of your works are slanted towards recentism. I think past tense is better because that means history can never be changed, that's one thing I learned on DYK. Only thing that was confusing me was the Background section, other than that, it was a good read. Don't forget to alert me when you take it to FAC. All the best. dxneo (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @dxneo! I really really appreciate that you chose to review more of my work; I look forward to seeing your comments at FAC as well. I can't respond to every suggestion you gave at the moment because things irl have been keeping me busy, so I hope the replies that are there are satisfactory for now. Thanks, Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 00:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

Apologies in advance as I do not think that I will be able to do a full review for this article, but I wanted to at least try to help with this peer review. My comments are below:

I do not think that there is a strong enough justification to include both non-free images in the infobox (File:SZA - Kill Bill.png and File:SZA - Kill Bill (Remix).png). I do not see a strong argument to include the remix coverage as the cover seemingly did not receive significant commentary to justify its inclusion so I would remove it and just keep the original cover.
For this part, (the lyrics discuss a fantasy), lyrics do not really "discuss" anything. It would probably be simpler to say "the lyrics are about a fantasy" instead.
I would include the record labels for this sentence: ("Kill Bill" was sent to US radio on January 10, 2023, after achieving success on streaming services.) An option would be to say something like: (Top Dawg and RCA sent "Kill Bill" to US radio on January 10, 2023, after achieving success on streaming services.)
Would it be normal for an article of this size to have a four-paragraph lead? I usually see song articles of this type with three-paragraph leads, such as the ones on "Bad Romance" and "Bad Blood" (Taylor Swift song), with the four-paragraph lead reserved for longer articles, like the one on Cleopatra. For instance, I could see information being cut from the second paragraph as it goes more into detail about chart records and performance and it could be benefit from a more summary style approach. I think the lead could be cut down in general. Things like the Rolling Stone list, Vivica A. Fox's cameo, or details on the music video's plot do not seem relevant enough for the lead, which again should be more of a summary.
I am uncertain about this part, (relatability despite the violent content). Why can't violent content be relatable? The murder ballad has been around for a while because it does tap into something that people can relate to (and should obviously not act on), but the prose seems to present violent content and relatability as mutually exclusive. Even the article includes a quote from Billboard writers that supports how this content is relatable to some people so I am not understanding the despite distinction being made here.
Apologies in advance as these are nitpicks. For this part, (recreated various visual elements), you can remove "various" as for the most part, it is usually a filler word with some exceptions of course. In a similar sense, for this part, (and well-acclaimed debut studio album), you can just say "acclaimed" as opposed to "well-acclaimed".
The way that this is part is worded, (the head of a deadly assassin group named Bill), it makes it sounds like the group is named Bill and not the character.
This part, (While watching the films, Bill caught SZA's attention and was inspired to create the song based on his behavior), is not grammatically correct. It is saying that Bill was "watching the films" and "was inspired to create the song based on his behavior".
I find the wording for the link in this part, (In the film's Volume 2), to be awkward. Either use the full title Kill Bill: Volume 2 or something like "In the film's sequel" instead.
Just out of curiosity, was there a reason the song's working title as "Igloo" or is it one of those situations where the working titles are just completely random on purpose?
This may be a matter of personal opinion, but the citation placement for (on July 13) cuts off the sentence awkwardly and hinders readability, at least in my opinion.
The start of the "Lyrics" section seem repetitious, specifically this part, (The premise of "Kill Bill" is heavily based on the Kill Bill films), as this was already introduced in the "Background" section. I am not sure about separating the Kill Bill stuff between these two sections like this, particularly if the name of the song came later in the recording process.
In the "Lyrics" section, the start of the third paragraph seems rather jarring. I am referencing these sentences: (Her therapist has advised her to seek other men, but she loves her ex-boyfriend to such a degree that she would rather still be with him than with anyone else. According to her, if she cannot have him back, then "no one should".) It just seems disconnected from a discussion about a song.
I would avoid using "meanwhile" as a transition, as done in this part, (Meanwhile, Vulture's Zoe Guy, Pitchfork's Jill Mapes, and Rolling Stone's Mankaprr Conteh). The word is used to say that events are happening at the same time, and it is doubtful that these critics did their reviews and published them at the same time. I would suggest that you use a different transition word.
For the "Accolades" section, I think this information would need to be presented as prose, not just as a table.
There are spots where the prose seems overly verbose. One example that stands out to me is the following, (SZA had prominent authority in the creative direction), the "had prominent authority" phrasing.
Were there any reviews for the music video?
The information from the "Credits" section should be present in the prose. Also, why is Sound on Sound being used to support this information when the liner notes are available?
This source has credited authors, which are not presented in the citation for it.
I would be consistent with using title case for the citation titles. And while it may not be required, I would highly recommend archiving online sources to avoid any potential headaches with link rot and death.

Apologies again for not doing a full review on the entire article, but these are the things that I have noticed from the parts that I have read. Best of luck with the peer review, and I hope that you are having a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]