Talk:DJ Kool Herc/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Wow, what an encyclopedic addition. I am almost reviewing this as a fan and find it hard to be objective. My favorite group of all-time is Run-DMC (look out Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, here they come). This guy is just a little before my time, but it gives me a sense of history. With all that said let me try to do an objective review.
 * First let me say I am curious about what has been going on with this guy since the 1980s. He is a New York Legend.  The New York Times online post 1981 search on "Kool Herc" (NYT search) in quotes has 27 results.  The first one that pops out at me that should be in the article is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/nyregion/04building.html  I would make a quick run around the internet.  Another quickie with recent results is a Time Magazine online search for the same term whicn yields 7 results since 1999 at Time mag search I would attempt to incorporate some online authentication of this guy's rep because it is almost 2009 and people don't want to go to the library anymore.  Use cite web like you can find used fairly properly in almost any article I write.
 * Personally I would add the New York City Project to the talk page.
 * I would attempt to add some categories. At least one People from category such as people from the Bronx or from New York City.  Does he belong in Category:Remixers?  I know he belongs somewhere in Category:DJs and or a couple of its subcategories. Probably Category:Hip hop DJs,  Category:New York City musicians, Category:African American musicians.  Look around at other DJs for category ideas and see what fits.
 * Let's take a look at what is in the article as opposed to what isn't. This is a rich historical article.  We can work with this very easily because a figure like this is what an encylopedia is for.
 * Let me preface my review by saying that I like to use about 50% more links than the average writer. However, I think there are some certain technical terms that the average reader thumbing through an encyclopedia online should be able to quickly lookup.  I wish turntable had its own page or more hip-hop reference at Phonograph, but might still link there.  However, since the page does not truly explain the hip-hop DJ turntable usage very well you might not.  your choice.  I think you want to link to Break (music).  You may want to link to Instrumental, Jamaican (or Jamaica).  In the first paragraph I would link DJ.  I would link graffiti, amplifier which you should not abbreviate in slang as you do.
 * I think you want to watch the slang. "Dub" has at least three slang meanings in the hip hop culture two of which were relevant in his time (including the crossover slang you are using) and a third which is more prominent than either of the other two back then.  In fact, the verb dub has very specific 1970s-80s hip hop meanings which are not intended in your lead.  Make this an encyclopedic entry for a modern youth.  We don't want him thinking he put twenty two inch wheels on the roller skates of his dancers or something.   We also don't want them thinking he was recording his dancers.  Slang gets tricky so try to stay away from it in an encyclopedia.  I realize that it Queen Elizabeth dubbed you a Knight there would be little confusion, but I don't think that would be an encyclopedic phrasing of an act.  Let's go with "nicknamed".
 * "Parts of the Bronx that Campbell's family moved into were becoming in effect run by various street gangs" has multiple problems. His family only moved to one part of the bronx unless they bought multiple homes.  It should start "The part of the Bronx that Campbell's family moved into was becoming". "in effect" should be chopped. Then you have a choice of leaving it or tightening it to gang-run, gang-dominated, youth street gang-run, street gang-run or something similar of your choosing.
 * You cater to not cater for.
 * There is no need to add the label and year for "Sex Machine". All singles should be formatted identically.
 * "It was at these neighborhood parties that DJ Kool Herc developed the style that was the blueprint for hip hop music." should be reformatted to "DJ Kool Herc developed the style that was the blueprint for hip hop music at these neighborhood parties". In addition, you can not start a paragraph with sentence like this because there is nothing that these parties could be referring to.  I.E., it must be referring to a different paragraph.  Thus even after rearranging, you will have to either change these parties or add something before it.
 * Still not so excited about these parties with no preceding referent in the section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * would use is an unencyclopedic tense. Say he used.
 * Remove the quotes around break. You should have linked it in the lead.  Now when you describe it
 * Link New York Times, refrain, microphone
 * Check all your songs for links like Give It Up or Turnit a Loose and link them.
 * You should use the term breakbeat in the break paragraph because the reader is not going to follow and it will probably confuse them in the B-boys and b-girls section if you don't.
 * Now you only have the term in the WP:LEAD--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "The b-boys and b-girls were the dancers to Herc's breakbeats" should be re-written with each of Hercs terms in quotes. I think you are saying he made up these names himself.  Say so clearly to start off the paragraph.  Something like "b-boys" and "b-girls" were slang references Herc created for the dancers to his breakbeats
 * You probably want to link to Breaking (dancing) at the earliest place inn the article where it is appropriate.
 * "The obvious connection is to the breakbeat," would probably be cleaner "The term "breaking" is seemingly derived from the term "breakbeat"
 * Then 'street slang of the time for' should be 'contemporary street slang having the meaning'.
 * Can you find any mention of more family members to incorporate in the article. Maybe a mother, father, spouse, child name or two.
 * The entire article is a biography. Thus, no section should be labelled Biography.  Remove this section and raise everything a level.

Whoa, extensive peer review, much appreciated. I can be slow to change things without talking it through a little, so if I seem intransigent or cranky on any point, bear in mind I'm really not - more just kind of talking aloud and perhaps soliciting more feedback.

I think there's a difference between an encyclopedia article and a bio (though the headers change is a good one). Nearly all treatments stop circa 1980, since there's not much else of serious note. His father was Keith and his mother, Nettie. (Chang) I'll find a way to introduce the names. Herc went off the radar in the '80s. Circa 1985, his father died and he developed a crack habit (New York mag, Oct 6 2008). He only really reappears in the 90s doing interviews for pay. There's the guest spot on Superbad, the Chang intro, and the recent and ongoing campaign to avoid 1520 being sold to developers who would move it out of the affordable housing bracket. I can develop these points into a substantial paragraph, perhaps two, but it still leaves a ten year gap, and possibly gives it undue weight. As ever, I find it tricky knowing how much detail to go into.
 * Add all detail you find in WP:RSs

"Dub" here is not slang, but a normal English usage meaning "confer a nickname upon". I'll change it though to avoid confusion.
 * I understand, but Dub has two slang meanings in the hip hop culture as well. Thus, we are well-advised to make a change as you did.

"Parts of the Bronx that Campbell's family moved into were becoming in effect run by various street gangs" This sentence has already been identified as lame by a passing IP. :) I'm trying to say that they moved into the Bronx, and that parts of that Bronx were by then becoming no-go areas for law enforcement and other civic institutions. However, it's a terrible sentence and I'll do something with it. The problem is that sources refer to the Bronx as a whole, not West Bronx specifically - but at the same time they're clearly not suggesting that the whole of the Bronx was necessarily outlaw country. I'll try to get something less hazy on this.

I have linked break (music) in the lead. Unfortunately, the lead of Break (music) seems to be written from a dance music POV, and is in fact terribly confusing in a hip hop context. It was my hope that all you needed to know - that they were short passages of records in which the percussive element was salient - was contained in the Herc article, and breakbeat, a decent article, is already linked in the Herc lead.

"you can not start a paragraph with sentence like this because there is nothing that these parties could be referring to" Except the preceding paragraph. I've tried to tweak the sentence, but I don't think we are compelled to make sections self-contained, or that it is bad style not to do so?
 * It is in general very bad form to have a pronoun in the leading sentence of a paragraph that refers to an earlier paragraph. In this case we are dealing with separate sections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Instrumental, Jamaican, DJ, microphone and amplifier Hrmm, I'm really not big on linking like that. I guess there's an argument for the last three. I've linked the other words you suggested. Breakdance, to which Breaking (dancing) redirects, is linked at a point which seems appropriate to me; I'm not sure what value an earlier linking would have.
 * DJ and amplifier seem like must links. Why don't you want to link these terms.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"cater to not cater for" Changed, but first I've heard of "cater for" not being equally valid. Is it British English perhaps? (I'm Irish.)
 * Here is the thing. Catering meaning generally serving is usually used with to.  When you are actually serving food catering for is probably proper usage.

"Check all your songs" That's the only one with an article, I'm afraid. And Jimmy Castor's records aren't written up here, so pipe-linking to albums containing the songs won't work either.

"I would attempt to incorporate some online authentication of this guy's rep because it is almost 2009 and people don't want to go to the library anymore" I don't care, nor do I need to care, a fig for those people. However, I'm happy to look at online sources to see what they say, and will do so shortly.
 * I am not going to pass this thing without the new info. I though I saw an new song out that actually gives him a shoutout by Ludcris or Jay-Z. You have the new housing, which I see you have added from the NYT.  Pleas thumb through the rest of the NYTs and Time mags and see what you can do.  Find that current song that gives him a shout out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"would use is an unencyclopedic tense" Changed. I find this distrust of the verb "would" strange (I often use it quite naturally for "future in the past" type operations) but it seems to be a wikipedia standard, so ok!

I've attempted to reword the other problematic phrasings you outline, added two cats, wrote out "amplifier" (good catch), formatted singles and changed the headers as you suggested. I still have some work to do - at the least, check the online sourcing, look at the low profile years, work in the parents' names, deal with that lame sentence. Should get to all that in a day or two.

BTW, Run D.M.C. and their album articles deserve polishing. I got sucked into writing about the c. '83-'85 new school they ushered in, and there are some really good sources for those articles. We should take a look at those articles sometime! 86.44.22.23 (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What sources do you refer to?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have only gotten half way through the article. The best way for you to respond and for me to keep track of what you have done is for you to put your response to each point immediately following the point I made.  If you don't mind.  It will  save me time if you rearrange you response to match each part with the line where I commented above. place it under and use three asterisks so it is indented three large spaces .  Reading your response. I am not sure what is done and what isn't.  Don't omit that New York mag article just because it might not be as positive a story as you would like.  If you can link it using an online archive that is best, but do note the facts in the article and cite them properly.  I apologize this review is taking so long for me to complete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free not to linke to any musical term with an article written for a different style of music. We don't want to confuse the reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * back to the review:
 * rm "somewhat of". This is an encyclopedia. We don't want WP:WEASEL words.
 * This is an encyclopedia. Read the link about weasel words above.  I mean it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * we need to improve the level of writing of this sentence "Herc branched out from the recreation room of his building..." Surely, Herc did not himself spout branches that extended to buildings all about town.  I think what you want to say is that "As a result of his new blossoming status, Herc began to perform at a variety of musical venues about town.  These include ..."  You might not want to include the part befor the word Herc in what I just suggested, but that is what I think you mean.
 * "Rapping duties were delegated to Coke La Rock, and Herc's collective, known as The Herculords, was further augmented by Clark Kent and dancers The Nigger Twins." Is currently a runon that does not make sense after the words Herculords. Put a period there and make the rest of the sentence into a complete sentence.
 * For Nelson George use quote
 * "could play" needs to be changed to something more definitive and encyclopedic.
 * How many people who would see this on the main page would know what you were saying if you said "Cut it up, Wiz". Cut up needs to be explained.
 * "Nervous venue owners, however, soon sent hip hop back to the clubs, community centers and high school gymnasiums of the Bronx." is without explanation.
 * "It is unclear why Kool Herc did not follow so many of the figures he inspired into commercially recorded hip hop, following Sylvia Robinson's assembling of the Sugarhill Gang and their release of "Rapper's Delight" in 1979. For one thing, early record labels were uncertain of how to integrate the DJ into a recording set-up, preferring to use a live band to back their rappers." has a lot of problems.
 * "he inspired into" should be "that he inspired to pursue".
 * I am not sure what you are saying with "following Sylvia Robinson's assembling of the Sugarhill Gang and their release of "Rapper's Delight" in 1979." Do you want to start this with "such as". Rework this part of the sentence.
 * "For one thing" is not encyclopedic.
 * "Herc himself puts it down to two events" is very slangy. You might want to say "Herc explains his choice as the result of two events"
 * "would make people wary of attending events hosted by him subsequent to it" should be "made people wary of attending subsequent events that he hosted." --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am now going to place this on hold and you have seven days to respond to my concerns above. After that I will make a final review.  I will check in periodically, but you can ask me questions as you wish.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I don't rearrange my comments, having started to reply in a different way.
 * just because it might not be as positive a story as you would like
 * Err...there's no suggestion of that whatsoever. I resent this unfounded and really rather stupid assertion. The issue is the tension between a biography and an encyclopedia article. Since most treatments stop circa 1980, should we nonetheless go on, and if we do, will doing so give weight to his crack addiction or his part in the campaign to keep 1520 affordable housing, as if they were as important as his rec room parties? This is the question I am asking. Anyhow, I have added a "Later years" section.
 * rm "somewhat of". This is an encyclopedia. We don't want WP:WEASEL words.
 * These are not weasel words, but a simple qualification of something that is not an absolute. However, I notice it is not sourced. If I can't find my sources for this I shall remove it.
 * we need to improve the level of writing of this sentence "Herc branched out from the recreation room of his building..." Surely, Herc did not himself spout branches that extended to buildings all about town. I think what you want to say is that "As a result of his new blossoming status, Herc began to perform at a variety of musical venues about town. These include ..." You might not want to include the part befor the word Herc in what I just suggested, but that is what I think you mean.
 * No, he did not spout, nor sprout, branches. This is an expression in the English language with the general meaning "became involved in a wider array of activities". I would not at all want to say what you suggest, but I have removed the phrase you dislike.
 * "Rapping duties were delegated to Coke La Rock, and Herc's collective, known as The Herculords, was further augmented by Clark Kent and dancers The Nigger Twins." Is currently a runon that does not make sense after the words Herculords. Put a period there and make the rest of the sentence into a complete sentence.
 * Not a run-on sentence: the clauses are not only conjoined, but part of the same idea. Would you prefer something like, "Rapping duties were delegated to Coke La Rock. Herc's collective, known as The Herculords, was further augmented by Clark Kent and dancers The Nigger Twins." ? I have changed the sentence to read this way.
 * For Nelson George use 
 * Done, though I think it disturbs the flow at that point.
 * "could play" needs to be changed to something more definitive and encyclopedic.
 * Surely not? It simply means that it was now possible (in 1975). But I've change it to something else.
 * How many people who would see this on the main page would know what you were saying if you said "Cut it up, Wiz". Cut up needs to be explained.
 * Took out the sentence.
 * "Nervous venue owners, however, soon sent hip hop back to the clubs, community centers and high school gymnasiums of the Bronx." is without explanation.
 * Explained.
 * ''"It is unclear why Kool Herc did not follow so many of the figures he inspired into commercially recorded hip hop, following Sylvia Robinson's assembling of the Sugarhill Gang and their release of "Rapper's Delight" in 1979. For one thing, early record labels were uncertain of how to integrate the DJ into a recording set-up, preferring to use a live band to back their rappers." has a lot of problems.
 * There seems to be a lot of following going on there.
 * "he inspired into" should be "that he inspired to pursue".
 * No. He "did not follow [them] into commercially recorded hip hop". Is this ungainly?
 * ''I am not sure what you are saying with "following Sylvia Robinson's assembling of the Sugarhill Gang and their release of "Rapper's Delight" in 1979." Do you want to start this with "such as". Rework this part of the sentence.
 * "Rappers Delight" marks the advent of commercially recorded hip hop. I've tried to make this clear.
 * ''"For one thing" is not encyclopedic.
 * Your usage of "encyclopedic" doesn't tally with anything I know about the word. But this is certainly a phrase, and indeed, a sentence, that the article doesn't need. Gone.
 * "Herc himself puts it down to two events" is very slangy. You might want to say "Herc explains his choice as the result of two events"
 * Very slangy? Oh my. Idiomatic, perhaps, at worst! The events themselves indicate that choice may have had little to do with it, but I have attempted a reword.
 * "would make people wary of attending events hosted by him subsequent to it" should be "made people wary of attending subsequent events that he hosted."
 * Done. That changes the meaning significantly, but looking at the sources I think it's ok. 86.44.26.75 (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I would attempt to incorporate some online authentication of this guy's rep
 * I did this. I looked a almost half of the 27 NYTimes articles and all 7 Time mag article.
 * I would add the New York City Project to the talk page.
 * I did this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would link DJ, New York Times, microphone and amplifier
 * I went ahead and linked these.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "The b-boys and b-girls were the dancers to Herc's breakbeats" should be re-written with each of Hercs terms in quotes. I think you are saying he made up these names himself.  Say so clearly to start off the paragraph.  Something like "b-boys" and "b-girls" were slang references Herc created for the dancers to his breakbeats.
 * Let's discuss these remaining issues again before a final evaluation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After my changes above, I am now going to pass this one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I got caught up in holiday madness. Thanks for your work. The article is certainly a lot better due to you alone. 86.44.27.25 (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I would attempt to incorporate some online authentication of this guy's rep
 * I did this. I looked a almost half of the 27 NYTimes articles and all 7 Time mag article.
 * I would add the New York City Project to the talk page.
 * I did this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would link DJ, New York Times, microphone and amplifier
 * I went ahead and linked these.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "The b-boys and b-girls were the dancers to Herc's breakbeats" should be re-written with each of Hercs terms in quotes. I think you are saying he made up these names himself.  Say so clearly to start off the paragraph.  Something like "b-boys" and "b-girls" were slang references Herc created for the dancers to his breakbeats.
 * Let's discuss these remaining issues again before a final evaluation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After my changes above, I am now going to pass this one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I got caught up in holiday madness. Thanks for your work. The article is certainly a lot better due to you alone. 86.44.27.25 (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I got caught up in holiday madness. Thanks for your work. The article is certainly a lot better due to you alone. 86.44.27.25 (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)