Talk:Black Panther (soundtrack)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 07:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this - it's quite a long article, so the full review should be added tomorrow! Kingsif (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• lead good length for article
• Film score is wikilinked twice, by the second sentence of the first section, and it is not itself an unusual term; I feel like the link in "...at the University of Southern California and scored his earlier films..." can go.
• Otherwise background section looks good
• Generally well written in standard American English grammar. There are some more complex formulations and run-on sentences, but nothing that obscures meaning as they follow simply enough.
• The voice of the article is strong, with good connections between sentences, paragraphs, and logical sections.
• I have corrected a mistake from a quote being used in the sentence, where the delivery voices became mixed and so the grammar and internal structure weren't right. The fix was effectively just starting a new sentence halfway through the quoted material.
• Perhaps wikilink Sampling (music) in "The Fula flute is used as a sample piece"
• As not all of the significances of the elements of the pieces use symbolism, I feel it was a good choice not to create a 'Symbolism and themes' section, leaving all the info with its choice selection, with some of the significance inherent to the African instruments and an important piece of choosing them, or otherwise an important aspect of composition design e.g. the Bach inspiration
• Temp score (track) is wikilinked but would benefit from some explanation, so I added a short parenthesis - if you feel another way of explaining would be better, please change this!
• Soundtrack's Development section has, in particular, strong sense of direction in its writing and a natural end (much of the rest of the article does, too)
• Also good choice not to include a separate album artwork section, as this would be much shorter than other sections and interrupt the effectively chronological flow established by the sections and that enhances reading. Including the information with the album release is appropriate.
• the article maintains reader's interest
• well-structured response section, which isn't always easy to achieve
• Nice inclusion of an industry impact section rather than merely including in critical response
• No-issue section on the remix EP, and follows standard music article practice of including other versions (which this is to the score) below main article
• Made some minor accuracy (spelling, commas) edits
• Pass

Illustration

• Good spread of images, inc. all album covers and the main musicians
• Appropriate use of tables and charts
• Good choice to use columns
• Pass

Coverage

• lead gives good overview coverage
• Background section establishes context and background to album creation, without excessive details
• Original score Research is comprehensive on this development period
• Amazing detail on the score Composition and everything's significance
• Recording info also completely comprehensive
• Ditto for Soundtrack development, etc, etc.
• Also keeps all coverage interesting, kudos to the written voice
• Good for including all music personnel
• Extensive inclusion of RS reviews, good to separate out some of the detailed views on wider impact
• About the right amount of detail for remix EP
• Pass

Neutrality

• gives differing views equal coverage
• does not use emotive language either in WP voice or near sourced material
• Pass

Verifiability

• Good range of RS, some primary sources used alongside others well
• Three cite errors (A list-defined reference named "WFEVibe" is not used in the content. A list-defined reference named "WFELish" is not used in the content. A list-defined reference named "WFEAfH" is not used in the content) - would look better if addressed but not actually anything missing
• Could have footnotes spread a bit more, but it is clear where sources are
• Pass

Stability

• Content dispute on August 3, but has not reappeared so seems ok
• Pass

Copyright

• Copyvio check looks clean
• Appropriate fair use justification for album covers.
• PassKingsif (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Overall

• Happy to say this has passed, with only a few style tweaks. There are some unactionable comments to review, still, for further improvement. Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)