User:Nerdman4244/Film score/WillieBean10 Peer Review

General info
Nerman4244
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Nerdman4244/Film score - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Film score - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Billie Bliss Professor Patricia Lincoln, ENG 111 April 27, 2024

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? The writer did not make any edits to the lead of the article.

Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? I feel as if the author of the original article did a decent job in the lead of their article, covering a multitude of topics, however, I feel like it could be edited down, and I don’t feel as if the last paragraph of the lead belongs in the lead, as it feels to veer off into a certain direction apart from the basic idea of film scores.

Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? The lead is quite informative with a lot of good information regarding what goes into scoring a film, but I didn’t necessarily agree when it comes to going over the different types of musical scores that are used in movies. I agree that movie scores have a lot of variety of styles based on the the film that’s being scored, but I also found it unnecessary to bring up why the term “score” is used for compositions made for feature films and that “the term is less frequently applied to music written for media such as live theatre, television and radio programs, and video games, and said music is typically referred to as either the soundtrack or incidental music.” I tend to disagree somewhat with this statement as music for live theatre, even television, is often referred to as “scores”. The “scores” are then put into a “soundtrack” for that live theare or television show. The musical composition is still known as a “score”. I feel that the information in the lead is a little misleading, so I would suggest a possible change in wording to the lead for the writer that makes people aware that musical compositions are still known as scores as a score is, by definition a musical composition “in manuscript or printed form, of a musical work, probably so called from vertical scoring lines that connect successive related staves. A score may contain the single part for a solo work or the many parts that make up an orchestral or ensemble composition” (brittanica.com). In the next section, which is Terminology, the only term brought up is the phrase “film score”, stating, “A film score may also be called a background score, background music, film soundtrack, film music, screen composition, screen music, or incidental music.” So, this statement alone somewhat contradicts what the original author wrote in their lead. I would suggest, my peer add more to the terminology when it comes to film scores as they only gave the definition of a film score itself.

My Lead Feedback to Peer: I would suggest my peer simplify the lead and then take some of the information that was in the lead, and place them in the appropriate sections. I would delete the part about scores and what a score means and put the appropriate information in the terminology section, adding more information to the terminology of a “film score”.

Clear Structure: I am a little confused as to two conflicting statements from the original author of the article and my peer I’m reviewing. The author wrote “As part of their preparations for writing the score the composer will often research different musical techniques and genres as appropriate for that specific project; as such, it is not uncommon for established film composers to be proficient at writing music in dozens of different styles.”, while my peer wrote “Each composer has there own Inspirations and there own pragmatic impressions that create a unique and grabbing sound that create a memorable scene.” I wonder if this is an opinion of the peer or information that’s been proven to be true. I would recommend the writer pay a bit more attention to their grammar as there are a few grammatical errors throughout the edit, such as the peer writing “there” instead of “their”.

Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? As I had stated above, under the Terminology section, right after the lead, the only terminology explained is the title of the wikipedia page, Film Score. Leading into the next section is “Process of Creation”, there are some terms within that section that could be added to the Terminology section. I would also suggest looking up the different parts of a film score and I imagine a lot more terminology would be found regarding film scores, as what the original author really did was just give a definition, not terminology

Your Structure Feedback to Peer: I would suggest my peer rewrite the section in the Process of Creation so that there are no conflicting statements and so that the information is more neutral and inclusive of the many styles composers use when composing scores for films. I would also pay closer attention to grammar.

Balancing Act:

Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? The sections seem to make sense, yet some of the information looks to be in the wrong sections. When the author makes references to certain films and their scores, I believe that information would be better placed in the History section of the article and more film score terminology was used throughout the article.

Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? In the writer’s edit, he writes, “In other scores you'll find not only original orchestration but also an incorporation of popular music, that represents the era and or the character being potrayed.” First, there is the spelling error, but the grammatical errors I’m sure can be changed before the final edit. But my main point when it comes to this sentence is, the writer then writes, “Many films do this like " Guardians of the galaxy", or the " Back to the Future". In the Robert Zemeckis, Alan Silvestri orchestrates a composion that is accompanied by tracks suck as; "The power of love", and "Back in Time" both by Huey Lewis and The News. This creates a sense of lightness that deviates from the fanfare-like main theme.” In this section, there are multiple grammatical errors, but also the writer is referencing movies that are familiar to them, but might not be familiar to others, such as myself, but I can see why he might have chosen to use references as that’s what the original author did earlier in the article. However, I feel it’s vital that you are able to make your point without using references to certain compositions, and instead be able to use the correct terminology for what you are trying to describe and instead by using the correct verbiage to explain your point. The writer uses the phrase “fanfare-like main theme”, when a more musically technical way of explaining the theme might be better. I also feel that the section for “Composers” was left quite bare. The only thing in that section is a link to Academy Award winners and nominees of original film scores There are plenty of composers who are not Academy Award nominees or winners that I feel should be named in the composers section.

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? As far as the entire article goes, I don’t believe it’s trying to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view, however, with some of my peer’s edits, I can tell what the author’s particular preferences are in movies and move scores, so that takes away a bit of the neutrality.

Your Balance Act Feedback to Peer: I suggest my peer makes the article more neutral and leaves the references to the History section and use more proper terminology when explaining about film scores. Neutral Content:

The following prompts are addressed in depth: The prompts that have to do with certain scores in certain movies seem to be explained more in depth than necessary. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? I would assume the original author was not that well versed in the terminology behind film scores and is more of a movie lover than a composer. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y.” There are a few edits I noticed that take away from the edit having a neutral feel such as, “Many scores often…” and, “This creates a sense of lightness that deviates from…” “Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? As I had stated above, under the Terminology section, right after the lead, the only terminology explained is the title of the wikipedia page, Film Score. Leading into the next section is “Process of Creation”, there are some terms within that section that could be added to the Terminology section. I would also suggest looking up the different parts of a film score and I imagine a lot more terminology would be found regarding film scores, as what the original author really did was just give a definition, not terminology Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." I don’t see a lot of information that makes claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people. Possibly some edits could be made in the “Music Criticism” section. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. I don’t find the article to focus too much on negative or positive information. Although some of the information seems to be misplaced or even inaccurate, it does give quite a bit of information regarding film scores.

Your Neutrality Feedback to Peer: I feel my peer would benefit from using less references, and possibly placing those in the History sections. I would also suggest not using statements such as “This creates…” or “Many feel…”. Reliable Sources:

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? It appears that my peer’s sources are both from journals that were published in 2018 and 2010. The journals are from “The Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics” along with the “Oxford University Press”.

Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. A lot of what is edited has parts highlighted in blue that just take you to the pages of a certain movie or composer, etc. Most edits seem to come from “The Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics” source.

Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! I do not see a lot of unsourced statements in the article or statements that I can’t find stated in the references, however, due to working yesterday full time and finishing my review today while having the flu, I will admit I wasn’t able to look through the entirety of the article and check each reference and whether they applied well to the article.

Source Feedback: I think my peer would benefit from looking for references that are more in line with what a film score actually is as opposed to certain references that are made in the edit. Final takeaways:

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The article covers a multitude of different things when it comes to film scores. I was impressed by parts of the creation process, especially the “written click track” part, which I am not very familiar with.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? What is the most important thing the author could to do to improve the article? I think the author could rearrange the article a bit so that the sections made more sense, added in some composers of film scores as opposed to their just being a link to nominated and winning Academy Award film score composers. I think adding more neutrality would also help the article and focus more on what a film score actually is as opposed to just a bunch of references.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article or vice versa? Reading through this article and then my peer’s edits, it made me realize that there are likely a lot more areas in my own article that need to be edited as opposed to just the section that focuses on lyrics.

Leave a Message: When you have reviewed your peer's article, you should leave a constructive message on their User Talk page. Your message is well-informed, thoughtful and correctly posted.

Wiki Peer Review Notes

● I feel as if the first sentence in the paragraph the peer changed, was somewhat similar to the original sentence of the author, but just barely different enough to note some changes to the sentences. The peer’s second sentence, however, did include some of the wording of the original author, such as when the writer talks about the emotion the composer is trying “to convey”. ● I would have preferred if the writer had chosen to start their edits after what the original author wrote, so as to present a different perspective, helping to round out the content and keep it neutral ● When the author is writing about the multiple factors that go into composing a song, there is the grammatical error at the end of the sentence that leaves it feeling a bit stunted, such as “and multiple more”. I would have preferred if the writer wrote “along with multiple more different variables”. ● The writer did seem to take information from earlier in the first paragraph that was edited into it later in the paragraph, such as when the writer speaks about the importance of the “geography” (or “geographic location”). So far, it does appear that a lot of words have been moved around. ● When it comes to the parts where the writer is speaking about specific songs composers have written for movies, the movies tend to be genres that I am not personally familiar with, which gives me the sense that the genres of movies the writer mentioned are movies that they have seen and are more familiar with, leading me to feel as if the paragraph is slightly biased toward a certain type of composition. The original paragraph felt slightly more neutral in its description of musical scores and the differences between them and why. ● The writer brings up how the composer in The Lord of the Rings, Howard Score, “used specific melodic idea” (grammar?) “to refer to The Shire using a tin flute to evoke a Celtic feel.” This particular reference didn’t full resonate with me as I have never seen the Lord of the Rings, know what “The Shire” is, or knew that the movie was supposed to evoke a Celtic feel. The same goes for the reference to “The Guardians of the Galaxy”, which I have not seen. I have seen “Back to the Future, however, but I feel as if if certain movies weren’t used as examples (because you can’t assume the reader has seen the movie you are referring to), the writer would have been able to still make his point that certain types of musical compositions are used in different types of movies to convey different feelings without alienating the population that may not understand what the writer is referring to since they are using specific examples of movies to get their point across. To me, I feel this caused the paragraph to come across a little less neutral than the original author’s paragraph. (WillieBean10 (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC))