Talk:History of hip hop dance/GA1

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

Reviewer: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) 17:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I've been copy editing as I've been reading, but more is needed. The problem is that the text is a little disjointed. For example:


 * "Don "Campbellock" Campbell created locking and founded The Lockers dance crew in Los Angeles.[39] Locking is characterized by consistently freezing or locking in place while dancing. Campbell developed locking accidentally while pausing in between dance moves when trying to remember how to do the Funky Chicken.[38][40] He developed routines based on his new style using these pauses or "locks".[38] Other dance moves performed in locking include "...points, skeeters, scooby doos, stop 'n go, which-away, and the fancies."[40] Campbell founded The Lockers, originally called The Cambellock Dancers, in 1973.[41] The Lockers made appearances on Soul Train,[42] The Carol Burnett Show,[43] The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, the The Dick Van Dyke Show, and Saturday Night Live.[12] Two original members of The Lockers were Toni Basil who doubled as the group's manager and Fred "Mr. Penguin" Berry who played the character of Rerun on the television show What's Happening!!.[44] Berry left the group in 1976 in order to be on the show. Tony "Go-Go" Lewis replaced him and became the next member of The Lockers.[44] He went on to open a locking school in Japan in 1985."[39]


 * The paragraph tells us that Campbell founded The Lockers, but then four sentences later it tells us when. "Lewis replaced Berry and became the next member of ..." – that he replaced Berry makes it obvious that he became the next member. "He" in the last sentence isn't clear; I assume it refers to Lewis, but it could refer to Berry. The whole article has this flow problem, and would benefit from the writer reading it through from top to bottom and fixing any flow issues and any repetition. While doing that, it would help to remove any unnecessary refs; several sentences have multiple refs after them, and it's not clear which ref supports the sentence, e.g. "When there was an issue over turf, the two warlords of the feuding gangs would uprock, and whoever won this preliminary battle decided where the real fight would be."[1][2][10] Also, when you quote someone, you need to say in the text who you are quoting.
 * Those refs are there because they all support that sentence. Why is this bad? I really don't want to remove them. Thank you for the tip about quotes. I just read MOS:QUOTE and you are right. They are supposed to be attributed to someone. I thought only a citation was required. //Gbern3 (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want the multiple refs, that's fine. It's just that they look a bit untidy because presented as separate footnotes. But there's no requirement to combine them, so that's okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it. You want to me to bundle them. I thought you wanted me to pick one ref and throw away/delete the others. I understand now but bundling does not work when you use named references "" . I use these a lot in the article. //Gbern3 (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it make sense to put the nomination on hold for a final copy edit? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ?? That's kind'of an odd question. I don’t have a lot of experience reviewing GANs, but I was under the impression that it’s common practice for reviewers to automatically put GANs "on hold" if they meet almost all of the requirements at WP:WIAGA but need more tweaking before they’re up to standard. So to me, yes, it makes sense to put it on hold for a copy edit. I don't think you honestly expected me to reply No, don't put it 'on hold'. Please fail it. I'm not good at copy-editing but I'll make my best attempt to fix problems in the prose. Doing now... //Gbern3 (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll put it on hold now. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm ready for you now. I just finished. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll restart the review. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Sometimes the books are in shortened form in the References (Smith 2012, p. 1) and sometimes written out in full (e.g. Hess, Mickey, ed. (2007). Icons of hip hop: an encyclopedia of the movement, music, and culture. 1. Westport: Greenwood Press). Either style is fine, but it needs to be consistent, unless you are writing it out in full on first reference and shortened form thereafter, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
 * Fixed, except for the five books I cited once because I didn't see the value or convenience of listing those in short form if I only reference them one time. I hope this is acceptable. If not, then I'll change those last five. //Gbern3 (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Summing up
I've completed the review and passed the article. It's comprehensive and interesting, and I was left with the impression that the author (Gbern3) really knows his stuff. The only thing I would say is that it's a little repetitive – the same issues are dealt with from different angles in different sections, and that sometimes involves repeating points and facts already outlined. So it would benefit from being reorganized a little to keep the repetition to a minimum (I would suggest printing it out and reading it offline; that often helps with organizational issues). But otherwise it's a really good piece of work. I enjoyed reading it and I learned a lot from it. So well done, and many thanks for writing it! SlimVirgin (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)