Speedway

Talk:SZA

Descriptor

The opening sentence descriptor seems to have changed a little over the years but singer and songwriter seem to have consistently been non-hyphenated (2017: singer and songwriter, 2018: singer and songwriter, 2019: singer and songwriter, 2020: singer, rapper and songwriter, 2021: singer and songwriter, 2022: singer. There hasn't been much change in how she has been marketed between her albums, and the usage of "singer-songwriter" (link to Wikipedia article) is inaccurate since she does not provide instrumental accompaniments to any compositions, including the new album. Among her contemporaries, Doja Cat is referred to as a "rapper and singer" despite also taking on vocal and songwriting roles on her last album. Ping major contributors mediafanatic17, FrozenIcicle, Your Power.--NØ 06:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: thank you for inviting me to this discussion. Re. my thoughts, she's been referred to in reliable sources as a singer-songwriter for as long as she's been making music:
... I can go on and on with the more recent stuff . Easy to find those sources if you look it up . We don't refer to Doja Cat as a singer-songwriter because a large chunk of RS, upon which we must base all information in our article, out there do not refer to her that way. With SZA, however, that is not the case. And you would be wrong to say someone needs to provide "instrumental accompaniments" (what I assume means they have to play instruments) for someone to be a singer-songwriter; all they need to do is compose melodies and/or lyrics. Going off the sources we have for the making of "Kill Bill", for example, there is reasonable evidence to see she can write melodies and lyrics for her own music. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"
08:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky: I see you have changed almost all of the SZA-related articles such that "American singer-songwriter SZA" becomes "American singer SZA". Pointing you to this previous discussion that established there was strong sourcing enough to keep the former wording; note as well that two SZA-related articles passed FAC with this wording. Please discuss here further if you disagree. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 12:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly made the changes on the basis of her songwriting credits (or lack thereof) from her album pages. She doesnt seem to have written any song on her own and only has co-writing credits. --FMSky (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because producers are often credited as songwriters (at times they ask to be credited, even if they've never touched the lyrics). See the case of "Kill Bill" where the two producers are credited as songwriters because they made the instrumental, but SZA wrote the lyrics and melody all on her own [1]. Same thing with "Snooze" [2] (Twitter faux pas, I know, but focus on the interview clips). ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 10:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1989 vs 1990

I noticed that most of the sources out there say or indicate that she was born in 1989, however some of them, particularly AllMusic, says that she was born in 1990. Is there any reason for this? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2024

Request a better picture from 2024 to represent SZA. Her current photo is barley recognizable. 108.48.181.224 (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. To what? We can't just use any picture off a google search, see WP:Image Use Policy Cannolis (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you comeing 92.28.17.195 (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a Personal Life Section for an artist of this caliber?

Requesting there to be a Personal Life Section. 142.114.86.163 (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, I've created the section. Feel free to add more relevant details (with valid sources of course). jolielover♥talk 16:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: planning to take to GAN/FAC

Hello! Recently, @750h+ has endeavored to bring this article to GA or FA status. Expect a greater volume of edits than usual. I have decided to tag along a bit as well; feel free to do the same! Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 11:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PSA:, I've done quite a lot on the article, I haven't completely finished (I haven't added much on her public image) but what are your current thoughts? 750h+ 08:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:SZA/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 11:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 09:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'll start this review within a couple of days.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks. 750h+ 10:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomobe03: ? 750h+ 03:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+, apologies for the delay. RL had me away from editing for few days, I only re-started editing yesterday. I expect to clear some backlogs today and start this review as well. Tomobe03 (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no problem, much thanks. 750h+ 08:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): {{GAList/chec

k|y}} b (focused):

  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  3. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  4. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Source spot checks

I'll start with source spot checks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • ref name "HOT97" (#10 at present): This reference uses the {{Cite web}} template for a YouTube video that is 27 minutes long. It is very difficult to confirm the reference because there is no information where in the video is the relevant information located. There is the {{Cite AV media}} template that should be used with YouTube videos and similar sources. Please include location information for all such works - otherwise it is simply impossible to confirm accuracy of the refs.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will do this later.
  • ref name "n839" (#20 at present) appears to be in order checkY
  • ref name "l280" (#30 at present) appears to be in order checkY
  • ref name "p205" (#40 at present) does not actually confirm multiple performances at the SXSW. The source specifies just that a show at the SXSW was planned.
    • the reference states, "she will perform at several performance showcases at the SXSW Music Festival in Austin, Texas, this week." But I will add this one, which doesn't specify the Z promotion part but does the SXSW performances.
  • ref name "x264" (#50 at present) appears to be in order checkY
  • ref name "p161" (#60 at present) is technically probably ok, but the wording "an unknown person took the hard drive containing the album's music" reads (at least to me) as if a random person stole the hard drive left unsupervised for a moment. If I had not looked at the source, I'd get a completely wrong idea.
  • ref name "m200" (#70 at present) appears to be in order checkY
  • ref name "l992" (#80 at present) appears to be in order checkY
  • ref name "g804" (#92 at present) appears to be in order checkY

I'll resume spot checks tomorrow.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomobe03: all done, thanks 750h+ 08:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #106 appears to be in order checkY
  • ref #114 appears to be in order checkY
  • ref #127 supports the claim about the collaboration, but it does not mention it being "highly anticipated". Is there a source for that?
    • there was an instagram source for that, but i removed it so i'll probably remove the highly anticipated part too
  • ref #137 points to an incorrect article - different publication, different title etc. - probably some mix up.
    • bit confused here, since it does point to the correct, unless the ref name changed
  • ref #144 appears to be in order checkY
  • ref #152 does not support the sentence it is meant to back up. The relevant prose mentions 63 shows in 2023 and 2024, but the referenced source talks about 2023 alone and lists 19 shows. Also, the prose mentions shows in Europe and Oceania, but none are listed by the ref.
  • ref #159 appears to be in order checkY
    • fixed
  • ref #169 announces release of Lana in three days, it does not report that it actually happened then... I assume that ought to be acceptable, but if you have another source handy, I'd suggest switching
    • fixed
  • ref #180 appears to be in order checkY
  • ref #191 appears to be in order checkY
  • ref #203 does not support the "whom she affectionally calls Granny" bit. Was the SOS contribution also spoken word or another form of "sampled voice"? At least for the Love Galore and Garden, it might be worth mentioning that the this refers to spoken word.
    • i added the "Granny" part, also i've added the part about the sampled voice
  • ref #216 appears to be in order checkY - there's another issue at this point, but I'll include it in the prose review next
  • ref #223 appears to be in order checkY
  • ref #237 appears to be in order checkY
  • ref #245 appears to be in order checkY
  • ref #246 appears to be technically in order checkY but "was in a relationship with a fashion designer for eleven years, being engaged for five" reads as if the name is accidentally omitted. The fact that the name is not made public by design should be mentioned to clear that up.
    • done
  • While there are ample references in the preceding sections, none are listed in the Discography, Filmography, and Tours sections - there really should be some available so readers are not required to investigate the rest of the article for confirmation.
    • references aren't ever listed in discography, filmography or tours sections
  • The first paragraph of the Awards and nominations is unreferenced.
    • done this one
  • ref #250 appears to be in order checkY
  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector reports no issues of concern checkY

Prose and MOS

I have read the prose to the "Impact, public image, and views" section and it seems very comprehensive, I don't think anything is missing and no details are excessivelly elaborated. I'll go through the rest tomorrow, review the changes and post back.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found no issues in this department.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images appear appropriate, appropriately captioned and licenced. My only qualm is that there appear to be two pics (infobox and at the top of the 2024–present: Lana and acting debut section) taken at 2024 Glastonbury - which is not a GA criterion problem, but maybe there is another photo that could increase variety instead of repetition.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review of GA criteria and the changes/responses made to my remarks, I'm passing the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Peer review


After working on this article for the past month I and @PSA: think it is almost ready for FAC but we'd like to get some feedback for the nomination. Best, 750h+ 10:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

@750h+, I will have to disagree with some of your changes to the article. First, with regards to merging these paragraphs, I believe they should be separated. The first one discusses why SZA is passionate about writing songs; the second discusses how SZA uses songwriting to reflect. That seems like disparate-enough themes to me.

Second, I also see you used the refn template to replace the topic sentence for the genre paragraph. I understand this was done to not clutter the prose with a bunch of references. Regardless, I am curious if we need five references just to show critics have always said she's an R&B singer-songwriter. The succeeding paragraph already implies that the narrative comes from the media. Additionally, "singer-songwriter" is not needed here because it has to be discussed in the succeeding "Songwriting" section. Currently, the topic sentence is unnecessarily unwieldy, and I think these editing choices have something to do with that. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 06:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing this, my responses will be listed below. 750h+ 06:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay, if that's what you think about paragraphs then we can unmerge them, i think for the most part i needed a bit of clarification on this one considering both sentences have pretty similar starting points.
in regards to your second concern i think we could reduce the number of references and remove "songwriter" but i do think we current sentence structure is superior, especially considering "for years" is somewhat vague, but i hope we can come to a consensus 750h+ 06:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PSA: what do you think about the current state of the article (given your changes to it)? i think it is much better now, but do you think your concerns have been addressed? For the most part your changes look really good, i feel like this will easily pass FAC. 750h+ 13:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

  • ... that SZA's stage name is derived from the Supreme Alphabet, with "S" meaning savior or sovereign, "Z" representing Zig-Zag, and "A" standing for Allah?
Improved to Good Article status by Tomobe03 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

🐝 B33net 🐝 23:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I'd like to propose some alternatives: Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 14:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT1: ... that singer-songwriter SZA has practiced Christianity and also identifies as Muslim? Source: Muslim Girl, People
  • ALT2: ... that singer-songwriter SZA was a hijabi as a child, but stopped wearing one due to Islamophobia after 9/11? Source: The Guardian
  • ALT3: ... that singer-songwriter SZA, often categorized as R&B by the media, has rejected the label due to its racist origins? Source: Uproxx
  • ALT4: ... that singer-songwriter SZA hates her most popular songs because she writes them very quickly? Billboard

Courtesy ping to @750h+, who nominated the article for GAN, for their thoughts. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 14:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius I have changed the DYK to ALT2, if that’s okay with you. I can change it back if there’s any issues. 🐝 B33net 🐝 3:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@B33net: Unfortunately, we still need to mention the original hook so the person who promotes this nomination to a prep area knows that it isn't a repeat of ALT2. However, I can note that you want ALT2 instead, which I'm going to do below. Epicgenius (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nice work on this article, @Tomobe03, B33net, PSA, and 750h+:. Specifically:

  • ALT0 is good to go.
  • For ALT1, the People source says "Her parents have an interfaith relationship as SZA’s mom is Christian and her dad is Muslim. "The Quran and the Bible were probably my firsts," the singer, who attended Sunday school and Muslim school, told the outlet of her early reads." I don't know if this can specifically be interpreted as practicing Christianity and identifying as Muslim, though. The other source says the same thing.
  • ALT2 is good to go.
  • For ALT3, the article does not mention racism specifically. The source says only that the label was reductive, not racist.
  • For ALT4, I don't see where the source says "I knew it would be something that pissed me off. It's always a song that I don't give a f–k about that's just super easy, not the sh-t that I put so much heart and energy into." Epicgenius (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


@B33net: i was the one who brought it to GAN, not Tomobe03, and you are not a major contributor, may I ask why you are nominating this? 750h+ 02:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+ The person who improved it to Good Article status was Tomobe03. While you nominated it, the DYK nomination specifically asks for the reviewer who assessed and upgraded it to that rank. I nominated it because it was one of the most recent GA articles. Per DYK nomination rules, an article must be newly created or recently upgraded to GA, among other criteria. This nomination follows those guidelines, as it is a newly assessed GA article. Hope this clarifies things. 🐝 B33net 🐝 03:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@B33net: please show me where it says that. Because from what I know you must be the one who brought the article to GA status to nominate the article for DYK. I, the main contributor and the one who brought it to GA status, had absolutely no knowledge of this being up. I see on the articles Naide Gomes and Seokjojeon that the GA nominators are the same people who nominated it for DYK so I'm very confused as to where your version came from. Also pinging coord @AirshipJungleman29: for his say on this. 750h+ 05:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. According to WP:DYKELIG, an article qualifies for DYK if it is either newly created, newly promoted to Good Article status, or expanded fivefold within the past seven days. There is no requirement that the same person who nominated it for GA must also nominate it for DYK—only that the article itself meets the criteria. In practice, many DYK nominations are submitted by users who did not write or review the GA but noticed that it meets eligibility. That being said, I understand your concern, and if you’d prefer to handle the nomination yourself, I’d be happy to step aside. 🐝 B33net 🐝 06:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
B33net, while you are correct that you can nominate articles expanded by others. It is polite to ask the other editor(s) before. Please do so in the future. In this case please withdraw from the nomination and let 750h+ take over. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 @B33net @750h+ I do not get the impression from the DYK Nomination form that the GAN reviewer should be listed at the "Improved to Good Article status by ...". While it seems obvious to me that the primary author of the article (usually the GAN nominator) should be listed, it is not specified either. Could you clarify? Tomobe03 (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed that bit. Yes, 750h+ should be listed as article improver. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i'm happy to let the nom continue, i was just confused as to why a DYK was put on an article i took to GA. 750h+ 09:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. I will happily accept this advice. 🐝 B33net 🐝 15:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]