Wikipedia:Peer review/III (Banks album)/archive1: Difference between revisions

I’m planning to make this article in FA, but once I failed to gather comments and reviews on the other article, I decided to conduct Peer review first. Thanks, Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti

Putting myself down to offer a review. I used to listen to Banks but didn’t really enjoy this album. Here’s hoping I can help readers enjoy the article! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti Thanks, I’m looking forward to your review! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is somewhat short for a four-paragraph lead, but I feel it works. I think other reviewers at FAC may have varied opinions, but I wanted to mark that you had at least one editor who believes that the lead is already fairly solid.
• While I think terms like “examine” and “explore” are good words to use in a review or an artist’s explanation of their work, I feel like they might be a tad idiomatic in this context. A good number of English Wikipedia’s readers, especially on music articles, are not native English speakers and may not quite understand the meaning. Not an imperative to change these, but worth considering.
• “Musically, III has been described…” By critics or the artist?
  • Critics, and  Done w that.
• With names like BJ Burton, utilize   to prevent the abbreviated first and second names from floating independently from the rest of the name when page size causes the line to break; see MOS:NBSP.
• “cohesive atmosphere, sonic experimentation, and emotional maturity” This passage sort of reflects stuff from the body, but there are some deviations. I would instead more closely follow the verbiage present in the body and sources, such as substituting “cohesiveness” for “cohesive atmosphere”.
• When introducing people by their career, avoid false titles. A thorough explanation of what this means is available at WP:FALSETITLE (something that is considered by many editors who review FACs to be MOS, even if it’s not exactly official). An example of this in the article is “Banks said she met producer Buddy Ross”, where the false title can be removed by rewriting it to read “Banks said she met the producer Buddy Ross”; note the insertion of the definite article.
  •  Done including below.
• Same sentence as the last comment. “Regarding collaborators, Banks said…” does introduce us to the concept of these people collaborating with her on the album, but I feel a couple more words that more clearly establish that relationship would be helpful. Consider something like “Regarding collaborators, Banks said she worked with the Buddy Ross, who she met through her publishers.”
  • Fixed
• I couldn’t figure it out by looking at the cited article or Damien Morris’s linked social media accounts, but are Morris’s pronouns they/them? If not, I’d change “They also noted the album’s…”, as that looks to be Morris’s perspective rather than that of Morris and others.
  • “They” was supposed to mean both Morris and Cliff 🙂
• For BJ Burton and Hudson Mohawke, please gloss them on first mention. The description “the producer BJ Burton” is probably best.
  •  Done
• I’m fairly certain that “press release” does not need to be linked in this context (however, I had no idea we had an article for those until just now).
  •  Done
• Link Eros when mentioned, but do so by paraphrasing the description of that Greek god rather than directly quoting the article. That quote is presently unattributed and unnecessary.
• You like to use adverbs as transitions, such as “Lyrically, III features…” While this is not necessarily bad, there are occasions in this article where those adverbs are use in place of clearer indications of what aspects of the subject are being discussed. These kinds of adverbial transitions are becoming more common in English (partially because of their brevity, partially because they are convenient in LLM-style bullet-point lists). Just use them sparingly.
• The same sentence contains a pair of unattributed quotes, “intricate production details” and “semi-cryptic lyrics”. Please indicate in-line who said what whenever using a direct quote.
• Link and gloss “Look What You’re Doing to Me” on first mention; it’s presently linked and glossed on second mention.

Yeah, everything looks solid. I always encourage a full reading of your article before submitting it to FAC. I also recommend doing a thorough check of your own citations to ensure that they are all properly done, as first-time FACs usually stall out for a long time as a source review is performed. I think this is a very good article that could be submitted to FAC very soon. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]