Wikipedia:Peer review/Black Panther (soundtrack)/archive1

Black Panther (soundtrack)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I am thinking about nominating this article for GA and just wanted to see if anyone had some helpful thoughts about the general structure and scope. Note that I am approaching this from more of a WP:FILM perspective (particularly how the music was made for the film) than a WP:ALBUM one. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 67 has an error of some kind. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Argento. I am in the process of trying to get that figured out. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstom.97, I hope you don't mind, I came here to leave comments but wound up fiddling instead. I reworked the lead a little to put the Lamar reception with the Lamar release. I also reworked the first bit of the Background section and added a ref for the quote (it didn't have one as far as I could tell). On the topic of that quote though, I'm not sure it's a good fit there - the wording preceding it makes it look like Coogler's words, and they aren't, not directly. I didn't want to remove it without checking to see if you'd rather rework the sentence. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Premeditated Chaos:, I restored the background section edits. For the reword, I don't think the change helped. Regarding the source, it is the "VultureApril2017" ref tag. The material is sourced by the next closest ref tag, to removed excessive tagging. On the topic of if the quote is necessary or a good fit, I would be happy to discuss this along with Adam, because I can see how it doesn't really work the best as is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Premeditated Chaos: thanks for showing interest! The change you made in the lead was good, and I have now added an extra in-line tag so the ref comes directly after the quote if that helps. I also don't really think the wording you added there changes anything, and I personally do not feel that the quote is being suggested to be Coogler's. I am happy to discuss this further, but I am pretty happy with how the section is reading currently. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Quotes need to be sourced directly after they're said (but that's been done so that's good). The way the sentence is structured makes it look like a Coogler quote, even if it doesn't say it is. Look how it's built: the whole thing is describing Coogler's actions, so it's natural for the reader to assume the quote is his - otherwise why put it in the sentence? We have him signing on, him insisting that he bring previous collaborators, him seeking to differentiate, and then a quote. Most readers would assume, based on the rest of the sentence, that it was Coogler saying MCU films are "shot, composed, and edited by the same in-house people". It should be altered to make it clear that it's someone else's description, or removed entirely. (Personally I'm in favor of removed; I don't think it adds much to the sentence anyway). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Side note: I put this on my watchlist so no need to ping :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do think there is some value in the context it provides, so I have cut it down but still kept some of it, and I have added attribution for the journalist who wrote the article since they appear to be his words. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Argento Surfer and Premeditated Chaos for your input here. Since there hasn't been any more responses in the last while, I am going to go ahead and archive this review. Next stop: GA nominating! - adamstom97 (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]