Wikipedia:Peer review/W.C. Handy/archive1

W.C. Handy
My concern regards the changes I've made to the W.C. Handy page. Upon my observation, I first thought the page was plagiarized and hence very well may have violated copyright. However, I was wrong. Yet, the information contained on the original page did not reference any source or citation, save for a brief, excerpted online version of a biography which was (and remains) in no wise exemplary. As a long-time resident of the area of Handy's birth, I have done research into his life and music. Motivated by what I perceived to be a poorly written article which was little better than a stub, I completely rewrote it, citing sources, and adding external links to current events that celebrate and commemorate his work. Referencing the previous article, there was (and which I incorprated in a revision) a reference to some of his works which I felt though only somewhat appropriate, would be better suited in a musicology article. They mentioned only one person's opinion - the writer - again, with no source citation of any kind. In my complete rewrite, I referenced the subject's autobiography, and several independent sources which are included in the external links. There is, in my estimation, a more fully complete picture of the breadth and character of the subject, and one which the casual visitor/reader would find fascinating. One example is that he started his own highly successful publishing company in an era of aparteid, and was widely acclaiamed by all. Though that detail was not necessarily of itself important, in context of the time, it was. And, seeking to present and offer understanding of the subject in context of his era and the current era was my objective. Please take a look at the article(s) and share your thoughts with me. Realize also however, that some minor formatting issues may be present, for which others more experienced will hopefully and gladly correct. The main thrust of my concern is for content, not mark-up.K. L. Bardon 18:08, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Nicely done. I had no comments. Revmachine21 13:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Very good! Perhaps my only concern is that there are too many one sentence paragraphs. Overall, though, this is an excellent article! Well researched and well written. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)