Talk:Hip hop dance/GA1

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

Hey, noticed this was nominated about a month ago. Taking a look at it.

And now I notice you're gone! Oops...

Criteria

 * Well-written - ✅;
 * Factually accurate - ✅;
 * Broad - ✅;
 * Neutral - ✅;
 * Stable - ✅;
 * Images - ✅;

Birth of breaking
✅


 * "Parallel with the evolution of hip-hop music, hip-hop dancing evolved from breaking and the funk styles into different forms." - I'm not sure what this means. Perhaps a colon into "moves such as the running man", to indicate a link? I'm not entirely sure, although my intuition tells me that's best. The problem there is that that sentence is expanding into different territory :-p
 * ✅ Added colon.


 * In third paragraph of Birth of breaking: "While Black Americans are responsible for creating breaking it was the Latinos that kept the momentum of breaking alive when it was considered "played out" in the late '70s." Egads! I loved the paragraph up to that: it was a perfect a-ha! moment for the term "break dancing". In fact, I started pacing around my room trying to get the narrative in my head incase anyone ever asked the etymology of the term "Break dancing". But then there's this total non-sequitur at the end of the paragraph. Fix, my editors! Fix!
 * ❌ I don't know where else in that section this sentence would fit other than at the end of that paragraph. I think it's important to note how the came dance about and who was responsible for what. There has been some debate at Wikipedia about the role Latinos played in developing breaking. Click here to read. Since this paragraph talks about how breaking developed I added how the Black and Latinos contributed specifically. It doesn't go anywhere else. ✅ Moved.


 * 4th para of same: "Breaking started out strictly as toprock,[9] footwork oriented dance moves performed while standing up, and uprock also called Brooklyn uprock or rocking." would this be better rendered as "Breaking started out strictly as toprock[9]&mdash;footwork oriented dance moves performed standing up&mdash;and uprock (also called Brooklyn uprock or rocking)." I'm fairly certain that the latter is the same as the former, but just wanted to add it here incase I'm wrong.
 * ✅ Changed.


 * The 4th para focus nearly exclusively (to my eyes) on uprock, but there is no talk of it's parallel toprock. It might be that they're the same, but I can't tell. So this whole area is a bit unbalanced, it would appear. Any thoughts? It might just be that it's not in the best order... it would seem to me that the thesis - and the reason for including uprock so early - is the battle mentality. But it still looks like a tangent. What I'm thinking is that the closing sentence should link uprock and toprock just so it looks more contained.
 * There is a parallel: Uprock is an aggressive form of toprock involving fancy footwork, shuffles, hitting motions, and movements that mimic fighting. Do you mean that there should be more background history on uprock? I'm not quite sure what you mean by tangent; it is related to the history. Uprock as a style of dance is itself a tangent. It's a separate dance outside of breaking that looks similar to toprock. This is explained in the paragraph part of which you quoted. Each paragraph presents information about the history breaking. Each paragraph talks about something different in the history and it's presented sequencially with the exception of the last paragraph which addresses capoeira. They all deal with breaking. UPDATE: ✅ Clarified.


 * Likewise, first sentence of 5th para should be merged to 4th.
 * It is: Whoever won this preliminary [uprock] battle decided where the real fight would be.[10][12] This is where the battle mentality in hip-hop dance comes from.[13] Followed by Because uprock's purpose was to moderate gang violence, it never crossed over into mainstream breaking as seen today.
 * Both sentences talk about uprock. I moved the 1st sentence from the fifth paragraph up so that it's the last sentence of the fourth paragraph. Not sure if it's to your liking but that paragraph sounds more complete this way. UPDATE It still is: Because uprock's purpose was to moderate gang violence, it never crossed over into mainstream breaking as seen today except for some very specific moves adopted by breakers who use it as a variation for their toprock.[10] Followed by From toprock, breaking progressed to being more floor oriented involving head spins, windmills, and swipes. I think this can be considered --> ✅


 * 6th para (RSC) seems a total aside to the Birth of breaking, particularly when smushed between what toprock is and the capoeira non-link. I'm not sure what to do about this, yet, although I do notice a section waaay down on Dance crews under Impact. Perhaps move some of the contextual stuff up? As a matter of fact, it would seem that the entire Impact section should be moved waaaaay up, being that it describes Hip-hop dance generally and its parallels to hip-hop (the parallels are stated quickly in the lede, so I think that's for the best. Thoughts?)
 * ❌ The paragraph directly preceding the one about RSC discusses how b-boy crews came about so naturally I followed that with a paragraph talking about RSC because they are the most famous b-boy crew in the world, one of the oldest, and responsible for much of breaking's widespread popularity/notability. Toprock/uprock is discussed further up in that section and capoeira is addressed at the end because there's a quote from Crazy Legs (RSC's president) talking about how breaking did not come from capoeira. I don't think it would be wise to move the material from the Impact section up into Birth of Breaking primarily because the Impact section barely mentions breaking. It talks about fad dances, social netwoking, tricking (which is fairly young), other dance crews, the dance industry, lyrical hip-hop, etc. Moving that information up would create tons of tangents which I can tell you are not a fan of. I think it would be better if all that information stays in it's own section.
 * Understood. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 7th para: "Uprock is similar in purpose to capoeira, both breaking and capoeira are performed to music, and capoeira is hundreds of years older than breaking." - capoeira being hundreds of years older makes it dissimilar. Probably just a bit of finnicking to get that para smooth.
 * ✅ I changed it around so that the "years older" information appears first like this: capoeira is hundreds of years older than breaking, Uprock is similar in purpose to capoeira, and both breaking and capoeira are performed to music. My objective in writing that was not to present three similar characteristics but to make the distinction that capoeira is older. In other words, I wanted it to be dissimilar; I did it on purpose. Some people think that breaking came from capoeira. There's the thought process of Well capoeira came around before breaking did and they both look alike so breaking must have come from it; <-- that kind of reasoning. It's natural to come to that conclusion because it makes sense but based on my sources, it's wrong. // Gbern3 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you for understanding my problem with that 3rd para ;-) I'm moving on, now. (And sorry I've been away - I myself was at a school of sorts and didn't have much access to WP). I'm moving onto the Funk Styles area, next. Should be a lot quicker now. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Xavexgoem (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2nd opinion: I recommend an immediate fail. The article can be brought back to GAN when the points above have been addressed and when the nominator has time to respond. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just gonna wait for his return; I removed the article from the list and commented out the template up top.
 * I appreciate that. Thank you. For whatever reason, Jezhotwells seems to be hell-bent on ensuring I fail. I'm greatful that you have a different POV. // Gbern3 (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably miscommunications etc. A lot of folks like process to go smoothly. I myself don't care one way or another so long as the intended result is good. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could this GA review be wrapped up? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah. Sorry. Mind hasn't been on WP. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC) But what happened to WP:NODEADLINE?
 * Anyway, I'm tired. So it's not going to be passed today. I'll make my decision by or on the 28th and no later. I hope this is agreeable. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I've read it, made a bunch of copy-edits, and I proclaim it Good. Except for one thing: The tektonic section is under the impact section. Can you merge it up? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. ✅ // Gbern3 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)