Wikipedia:Peer review/Hip-hop dance/archive1

===Hip-hop dance===

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it at WP:FAC. This article had a lot of misleading or just wrong information prior to when I started rewriting it (click here to see before) so I took it upon myself to correct and expand it. I would specifically like feedback on the lead and grammar. Those are what I'm most concerned about. I would also appreciate it if someone could rate this article according to wikipedia's quality assessment scale and change the status on this article's talk page. Be forewarned that this is a long article. I took it from 9KB to 72KB but it was necessary in order to talk about the history and to make this article comprehensive which, based on what I've read, is required to meet criteria 1a. If it's any consolation, Britney Spears' article is longer and hip-hop dance is older than she is. Thanks, Gbern3 (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Hip-hop dance/archive1.

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but is far from FA. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

Title
 * Since hip-hop is used throughout with a hyphen, shouldn't the title be "Hip-hop dance"?
 * YES, I totally agree with you but I didn't know I was able to use a hyphen because of all the rules on article titles. I took another look and I didn't see anything about hyphens so I went ahead and made the move.

General
 * The dabfinder tool that lives here finds about a dozen wikilinks in the article that go to disambiguation pages rather than to their intended targets.
 * Neat tool. I bookmarked it so that I can use it for the other articles I'm writing/editing.


 * You are right in thinking that the whole article needs the close attention of a copyeditor. You might be able to find one via the list at WP:PRV, or perhaps you can find one who has written a music-related FA.
 * I actually contacted seven users to copyedit this article the day I posted this review. See my September 10th contribution history. I also posted a request last week on the feedback page.


 * Many paragraphs in the article lack sources. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, every set of statistics, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, and every direct quote.
 * See response below


 * I had trouble with the organization. The "History" section begins with the history of breaking, but the next section says that funk styles came before breaking. Would it more helpful to readers to arrange the history in chronological fashion? Two sections after the history of breaking comes a definition of breaking: "A break is a musical interlude during a song—the section on a musical recording where the percussive rhythms are most aggressive and hard driving." Shouldn't this definition appear much earlier, at the beginning of the long discussion of the history of breaking? Many readers know virtually nothing about hip-hop. If you can imagine them as your audience, it should help in organizing the material.
 * See response below

Lead
 * "Hip-Hop dance refers to social or choreographed... ". Since "hip-hop" is lower-case in the middle of a sentence, shouldn't the repetition of the title here be "Hip-hop dance"? The first H is capitalized here because it starts a sentence.
 * "Hip-Hop dance has over 30 years of history with the first professional breaking, locking, and popping crews forming in the 1970s." - Generally, "with" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "More than 30 years old, hip-hop dance became widely known after the first professional breaking, locking, and popping crews formed in the 1970s."
 * "The country consistently produces the best b-boys in the world." - Wikilink b-boy?
 * "The country consistently produces the best b-boys in the world. So much so that the South Korean government has designated the Gamblerz and Rivers breaking crews official ambassadors of Korean culture." - The second sentence here isn't complete. Suggestion: "The country consistently produces such skillful b-boys that the South Korean government has designated the Gamblerz and Rivers breaking crews official ambassadors of Korean culture."
 * Wikilink Gamblerz?

"The birth of breaking"
 * The Manual of Style suggests dropping "the" from heads and subheads and simply using "Birth of breaking" and parallel constructions.
 * "The purest hip-hop dance style, breaking, began as elaborations on how James Brown danced on TV." - It would be good to say when he danced like this on TV.
 * "People would mimic these moves in their living rooms... " - Since these events happened in the past, "mimicked" would be better than "would mimic". Ditto for "an up and coming Jamaican American DJ who would frequently spin records at neighborhood teenage parties...", where "who frequently spun records... " would be more direct, less wordy. Ditto for similar constructions throughout the article.
 * Removed some of the "would"s but left those that were in quotes or grammatically correct (being used to describe habitual action in the past).


 * "an up and coming Jamaican American DJ" - "Up and coming" is slang and also wordy. Maybe just delete it? Ditto for "carried on the torch " a few sentences later.
 * "He would play a break on a record on one side of the turntables. On the other side he would have a copy of the same record ready to play the break at the beginning after the first record finished." - Suggestion: "When he played a recorded break on one turntable, he repeated the break on a second turntable as soon as the first was done."
 * "Rock Steady Crew is the most famous breaking crew in the world." - It's usually a good idea to include the abbreviation on first reference so that it make sense later in the article when it stands alone; i.e., "Rock Steady Crew (RSC)". Actually, the first sentence is in the lead, so the RSC should probably go there.
 * "a form of self defense disguised as a dance." - This should be in italics only if the original is in italics.

Worldwide exposure
 * The table should probably not be collapsed for reasons related to accessibility.

Breaking/B-boying
 * Bolding is generally not used for emphasis in the main text. MOS:BOLD has details.
 * The link you provided says that it's OK to use for definitions.

International competitions
 * It's generally a good idea to turn bulleted lists into straight prose. That would be easy to do in this section. ❌
 * According to WP:Lists, this section is more appropriate in list form. Since there are nine competitions with their own beginning stories, it provides a kind of structure that prose would not.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, almost all of them were very helpful but I have some questions/comments about some of your suggestions.
 * "Many paragraphs in the article lack sources. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph..."
 * Can you please clarify what paragraphs you're talking about. In the popping section, the first paragraph has no sources because the two facts presented (1. Boogaloo Sam inventing popping and 2. each muscle contraction being called a pop/hit) are already cited in the history section. Other than that, the paragraphs I see that lack sources are those in the lead, the introductory paragraphs for each section, and a couple conclusion paragraphs. I don't see why I would need references for a paragraph that's only introducing (or closing) the section. The same with the lead; it's only purpose is to introduce the article. Please be more specific.
 * Generally, leads don't need citations if the material presented in them is sourced in the main text sections. You are right about the lead. However, the introductory and conclusion paragraphs present material that at least in part reads like analysis or original research if not sourced. For example, the introductory paragraph to "International competitions" says in part, "Some of them allow multiple styles to enter while others focus on specific styles, most of the time breaking." The claim that "most of the time" the competitions focus on breaking may be true, but how can a reader verify the claim when no source is given? The next sentence says in part, "What makes hip-hop dance competitions unique, is that a lot of emphasis is placed on freestyle battles... ". Who says that hip-hop is unique and that it is unique because of its emphasis on freestyle battles? These claims may be true, but how can we be sure? Finetooth (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I get it. Your response actually made Piano's comments below make sense. I edited the introductory paragraph to "international competitions." I don't know if it will pass this time but I think it's better because there are no peacock terms that would require a source to be provided. I don't know if you found fault with the "main styles" introduction as well. I didn't change it at all because I feel the entire article proves that introduction to be true. I completely changed the intro to the "impact" section and found a source about popular fad dances. I think these changes should address the problems you mentioned.
 * "every set of statistics..." This article doesn't present any statistics.
 * I don't see many, but here is one: "For the 2009 competition there were 120 crews representing 30 countries." It's sourced, not a problem. Finetooth (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "every claim that might reasonably be questioned..." This is why I would like for you to clarify. There are 105 inline citations spread evenly throughout the article. In my mind every claim that might be reasonably questioned is sourced.
 * The total number of citations isn't the issue. I've given a couple of specific examples above of unsourced paragraphs that I think contain claims that might reasonably be questioned. Finetooth (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "...and every direct quote." All direct quotes are sourced.
 * "The "History" section begins with the history of breaking, but the next section says that funk styles came before breaking. Would it more helpful to readers to arrange the history in chronological fashion?"
 * It actually is in chronological order. Let me explain. The funk styles were not originally hip-hop dances when they first appeared. It was a separate genre in the same way modern dance is separate from jazz dance. Breaking has always been hip-hop. When it first came about it was THE hip-hop dance style, the only one. The funk styles were considered hip-hop dances AFTER hip-hop culture became established on the west coast. So in the context of hip-hop culture breaking was the first hip-hop dance style and the funk styles were second. If this article was about vernacular dance then I would agree with you because vernacular dance isn't culture specific; it just refers to any dance style developed outside of a studio. Since the title of this article is hip-hop dance, it's culture specific and it's appropriate to mention breaking first because breaking was there at the beginning whereas the funk styles were not. This is mentioned in the 1st and 3rd paragraphs here.


 * "Two sections after the history of breaking comes a definition of [a break]... Shouldn't this definition appear much earlier?"
 * It does appear much earlier: At the beginning of the article in the first block quote directly beneath the first paragraph: "The moment when the dancers really got wild was in a song's short instrumental break, when the band would drop out and the rhythm section would get elemental."
 * Buried in the middle of a blockquote, it doesn't appear to be a clear definition. This is much more clear: "A break is a musical interlude during a song—the section on a musical recording where the percussive rhythms are most aggressive and hard driving." Most of your potential readers will be like me, I think, relative ignoramuses on the subject. For the article to work in an encyclopedia for the general public, it has to be clear to the ignoramus. Finetooth (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">Added definition to the 2nd paragraph, directly after the block quote.</b>
 * Thank you SO MUCH for the review. I know reading this article was work. It is long. Please clarify which paragraphs need sources. Thanks again. // Gbern3 (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Piano non troppo comments: Sorry it took me so long to respond. I thought I'd let others with detailed knowledge go first.

Finetooth made good comments. And the changes you've made answering them greatly helped the article. Along with him I caution that the article is still far from FA. On the "bright side", imho, it's closer to meeting the "B-Class" it already had!
 * <b style="color:#556B2F"> So it's not even B-class? Your last comment makes it sound like it's C+.</b>

As it stands now, the article can be read and makes a reasonable amount of sense, even to someone such as me who knows little about the subject. The problem is the references, and it's a complex issue. Finetooth said this:


 * "Many paragraphs in the article lack sources. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, every set of statistics, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, and every direct quote."

Another perspective on this rule-of-thumb is:

Test 1: Is a sentence encyclopedic?

Test 2: Does the sentence need a reference for verification?

Test 3: Is a reliable reference available?

Some Hip hop dance sentences are not encyclopedic. They are quite suitable for a magazine article, or a newspaper story, or a school essay, but we ain't there: this is an encyclopedia. The article says, "Following in the vernacular tradition". That's suitable in a paper for your sociology class, where the teacher says "vernacular tradition" six times every hour. But it doesn't work for general readers. I have a very hazy idea what "vernacular tradition" is -- and furthermore, I bet you can't define what is (and what is not) vernacular tradition. I.e., it's probably WP:PEACOCK.
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">I see what you mean about the definition of vernacular not being clear to general readers. I actually got that term from wikipedia via the article about vernacular dance (also called street dance). I defined it in my response to Finetooth's comments about the history section. Why is this considered</b> WP:PEACOCK <b style="color:#556B2F">as opposed to</b> WP:JARGON<b style="color:#556B2F">? To remedy this, can't I just replace the word, wikilink it, or take out "Following in the vernacular tradition" all together?</b>

Now let's assume you found an excellent, solid, clear definition of "vernacular tradition". Problem solved? Not even. The sentence goes on to say "Following in the vernacular tradition hip-hop dance...." Wait. Who says hip-hop is in that tradition? Got a source?
 * <b style="color:#556B2F"> I got tons of sources. According to the wikipedia article linked above "vernacular dance is an umbrella term used to describe dance styles that evolved outside of dance studios in everyday spaces such as streets, school yards and nightclubs. They are often improvisational and social in nature, encouraging interaction and contact with the spectators and the other dancers." Why do I need a source for this specific statement when the entire birth of breaking section and it's respective references prove this sentence to be true? The policy on references states that sources should be provided for statements that would be challenged. Even w/o the "birth of breaking" section I think it's fair to say that the general public, even if they know very little about hip-hop, knows that it came from the streets. The WP:JARGON policy says that terms that are not obvious in meaning should be wikilinked. Would anybody challenge this if they knew what vernacular means? Since I have plenty of sources, I really think this problem would be solved by wikilinking vernacular.</b>
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">Removed the entire sentence and rearranged that paragraph altogether.</b>

Now you're thinking -- Grrrrr, how am I supposed to find sources for all that? And the answer is -- you probably can't. So you did the next best thing -- Which is what I do when I can't find reliable references for articles I'm writing -- I at least give other references. That way readers get an idea of what's going on, they know that I'm not bullshitting my way through. You've already got enough ( ! ) references of that type.

In another article that I'm writing I *know* that I won't be able to find complete references. Why? Because the authoritative book was published last year, and the author says "the sources are fragmentary". That puts me in a bad Wiki place, because i WANT those references. I know someone can come along and smash my article up. I know the article can never reach FA status. But that doesn't mean I can't do a hell of a job making it as good as I can. (In fact, it's now number 3 in Google search results for that topic.) (And so is this hip hop article!)

Have a look at that WP:PEACOCK article. Think hard about the words in that bullet list. Why are they (often) peacock? Hint: If I put the word "not" in front of any of them in an article -- who could prove me wrong? -- they're all a matter of opinion.
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">I'm confused. The peacock article says that peacock words as terms that merely promote the subject of an article without explaining why it's important. The championships listed in the bulleted section are all sourced. How is it opinion if there's a source? The closest thing I found to peacock words in that section was here:
 * "There are four world championship titles: best breaking crew, best solo b-boy, best solo popping, and best locking duo."
 * I don't think this counts as peacock because if you win a world championship title it's natural to be called the best. It states here that in cases like this where it's clear something is the best, it's OK to use best to describe it. I changed it anyway to say this:
 * "There are four world championship titles: breaking crew champions, solo b-boy champion, solo popping champion, and locking 2-on-2 champions."
 * I also did a search for other peacock terms in the article and deleted/changed those as well.</b>

When write articles, I use Google Books for references. I've even purchased some of those books, I was so desperate to get a reference I wanted. (Got a couple I wanted to throw at the author, but that's the risk you take.)

One other thing to (maybe) make you feel better about your process. I have a couple degrees in history. My professors said: "We don't have classes about things that happened in the last 10 years, because we just don't have the perspective to realize what was really going on." Realize what historical ballpark you are playing in. With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Notice that many of those Google Books on Hip-Hop have a "Limited Preview". For example "Hip-Hop Culture". I just opened it up at random to p. 96. Hmmm. Looks interesting. Those Google Books can be cited. You wouldn't need to buy the book. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#556B2F">I'm really confused. Do I need more references? At the beginning of your response you stated "The problem is the references, and it's a complex issue" and then tried to explain to me what the problem is. I still don't understand what's wrong with my sources. Your explanation about peacock terms was clear but how that relates to the references is vague. I really do appreciate your peer review especially since this article is so long but I need a more specific answer about the problem with the citations/sources.</b> // Gbern3 (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One idea in a reference is to give readers something else to continue reading, if they are interested in a particular idea. The article's got plenty of those references! Another idea is to give a reference when there's a fair chance someone will dispute the statement. That's where more references are needed.


 * To make an analogy? Sometimes I read a Wiki article with a quote saying, pretty much, "This movie sucks eggs." I read that? I'm saying to myself, "Oh, yeah? Who said so?" Then it turns out the quote is from some famous reviewer on the New York Times. Ok, then I have to accept that. Maybe I don't think the comment is very constructive, but that's about as reputable as an opinion as it gets.


 * Example: "Internationally, hip-hop dance has had a particularly strong influence in France and South Korea." That *could* be true. A quote from a source showing that CD sales are highest in the world in France and South Korea would make it OK. (A quote just showing that a lot of CDs are sold in France and South Korea, without talking about the rest of the world, however, isn't much use.)
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">Why give a source on CD sales when the article isn't about music? Don't the sourced statements in the body of the article prove the lead to be true? Take South Korea for example: the South Korean government sponsors R16, an international b-boy competition. The government does this. Not the private sector or a non-profit. Government money is being used to pay for 16 top ranked b-boy crews from around the world to come together and battle each other. And it's broadcast live on Korean national television (what I'm saying here is all sourced in the article). Hip-hop dance is from the U.S. but the U.S. government wouldn't dream of doing that here. That is definitely strong influence. Influence on the government level; it doesn't get bigger than that.</b>
 * Counterexample: Finetooth's quote "what makes hip-hop unique" is something that's so peacock, NO source is going to help. Millions and billions of things are "unique", that's the way the universe is made. Is there ANY dance style or culture that is NOT unique? Then ... if it's obvious, and always true ... there's no point in saying it.


 * Is the flavor of this coming through? (It's much easier to see if you aren't "close" to the subject. Pick a Wiki article on a major rock group that you really, really DON'T like ... start reading. See how long it takes to start grinding your teeth, challenging what you're reading, and getting the urge to demand reliable references. Try maybe Britney Spears ("established her as a pop icon and "bona fide pop phenomenon", credited for influencing the revival of teen pop in the late 1990s") or Metallica ("The band earned a growing fan base in the underground music community and critical acclaim"). Those articles suck eggs. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#556B2F">Yes, the flavor is coming through but you kind'of threw me off with your example articles at the end. Britney Spears has GA status and Metallica is currently a featured article. They can't be that bad. How else would they get GA/FA status. Anyhow, I went through the article again for WP:peacock terms and removed half of the ones that were still there. Others I left for the following reasons:
 * NOTABLE
 * This includes a wide range of styles notably breaking, locking, and popping which were developed in the 1970s by Black and Latino Americans - This sentence is in the lead, the entire article explains why they're the most notable. Also, introductory lead sentence for the main styles section.
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">They have achieved worldwide notability... - "They" meaning breaking, locking, and popping. True sentence, sourced worldwide exposure table/section proves it.
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">PIONEERS
 * Aside from the pioneers in New York was Rennie Harris Puremovement hip-hop theater company... and Pioneers of krumping Christopher "Lil' C" Toler, Ceasare "Tight Eyez" Willis... - True sentences. The New York crews I mentioned in that article started hip-hop theater, and Lil C' and Tight Eyez created krumping. That's why they're the "pioneers". Both statements sourced.
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">PRIMARY
 * The lock is the primary move used in locking. - The lock is the primary move, that's why it's called locking.
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">UNIQUE
 * While Sam was creating popping and [electric] boogaloo, others were creating and practicing unique styles of their own. - sourced quote
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">What makes lyrical hip hop unique is that your dance movements have to tell a story to the lyrics of a song. - sourced quote
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">BEST
 * America's Best Dance Crew - Title of the TV show.
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">The world finals also include the "Fresh Awards" (best dressed)... - Explanation of what the fresh awards are.
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">THE MOST
 * The most influential groups include the Rock Steady Crew, the Lockers, and the Electric Boogaloos - True statement. History section and all respective references within it proves this.
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">Rock Steady Crew is the most famous breaking crew in the world. - sourced statement from NPR
 * [breaking, locking, and popping are] the most commonly exercised in international competitive hip-hop dancing. - international competitions section and all sources within prove this statement to be true.
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">MAJOR
 * One major difference between both art forms is that in capoeira a competitor's back can never touch the ground. - it is a major difference, sourced</b> // Gbern3 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, sorry. My example articles were not straightforward, I wasn't thinking that through.


 * Despite its rating, the Britney Spears article is not something you'd read in the "Encyclopedia Britannica". It's a fan and promotional page that artfully avoids breaking Wikipedia rules. (Marketing departments actually have presentations about how to avoid the rules and advertise in Wiki.)


 * You are approaching this aspect from a different perspective than I am. You're saying "Well, is it reasonable to say this?" and "Can it be verified?" WP:V. That's the "letter of the law" in Wikipedia. How marketing departments get around this is to create verifiable sources that say outrageously positive things.


 * The Britney Spears article reads, "which established her as a pop icon". That's just crap, and the reference for the statement does NOT say exactly say that. Marketing departments know this is a hard argument to lose in Wikipedia, so they use it a lot. The statement is crap in that some particular thing "established" her. What does "established" OBJECTIVELY mean? Nothing. It's a sensational word that means "really popular in the media". On what date did she become "established"? Was in in June or July of 1994? Do you see what I mean? You might ask: What difference does it make? It makes this difference: If you can't give a reason why somebody is "established" or "not established" then every single person mentioned in Wikipedia can claim that they are "established".


 * You are making lots of good changes. Just as a parting shot, I'll ask, from your example, "They have achieved worldwide notability", what does the word "worldwide" mean? In more than one country? In all countries?


 * Overall, I think you're on a great path. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)