| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been over a year since it last had one; with all the updates/changes that have taken place since then, I think it's time for another. I'm not so much concerned about content because I did a lot of research for this article and I honestly feel like it's very thorough. I would like copy-editing help and feedback on anything that may need to be clarified in the article. I know not everyone is familiar with hip-hop dance and I would like for the material to be generally easy to understand for a casual reader.
Thanks, Gbern3 (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comments from Jappalang
- Dablinks (tool in the box on the right of this peer review page) shows a disambiguation link and a redirect that points back to the article; please fix them.
- Fixed. //Gbern3 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why is this article (whose subject is a major theme in modern dance culture) heavily dependent on web and journalistic sources? Google shows 5,650 books published by universities. Why is this article not using these materials that are much preferred as "high-quality reliable sources" under the FA-criteria 1b?
- Why are you talking (or typing) down to me like a child. To answer your last question, I honestly don't have any plans to submit this article to WP:FAC. All I wanted was a peer review. To answer the first question there are a lot of books published on hip-hop culture and a lot of books published on dance but there are not a lot of books published on hip-hop dance. This is probably because it's a street dance and doesn't have the academic background of a studio based style such as ballet. I have experienced this personally when searching for books at my own local libraries and this is also demonstrated by the link you provided (just for the record I used two books for this article, primarily Can't Stop, Won't Stop). Did you read the list of the 5,650 books that you provided a link to (literally speaking, I don't mean that in a rude way)? I read the results up through page 10. Most of the books on the first couple pages talk about hip-hop culture or dance in general, dance as a performance art. What's wrong with web and journalistic sources? As long as they're WP:RELIABLE there shouldn't be a problem. The fifth page has an except from the book A history of European folk music. The title alone makes me think I can't extract anything useful but I read the results anyway:
- For instance, when hip-hop dancing turned up in Scandinavia, this was not a revival of the Norwegian "halling" dance but an import from the United States. Likewise, popping and break-dancing began among the young people of Spanish and African origin in New York, but although their origins have been sought in Iberian and African folklore, it appears that the only close relatives are African-American show dances, including tap dancing.
- From this random book that mentions hip-hop dance in passing, the only thing I learned was something I already knew: hip-hop dance came from the United States. Why do I need to go to Google Books when I can read that fact in reliable web and journalistic sources? //Gbern3 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I asked a question. I see nothing in my tone that suggests "talking (or typing) down to [you] like a child". You asked for suggestions to improve the article and I pointed it out (the lack of high-quality reliable sources). Whether you want to go for FAC or not is none of my concern. You asked for suggestions on how to improve the article, I gave it (improving it to a higher standard).
- The dismissal of Google books based on a random book is flawed, especially since the book sample below shows a fundamental oversight of the evolution of subject (that of an evolution from the early 1920s. Ignoring the possible academic sources that are available (and which might provide more information) for the convenience of relying on web sites does not help to improve the article. It falls on the editors of the articles to sieve through available resources, and I am pointing out that the article has ignored a pool of high-value resources. Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I understand books are a good resource and I'm not arguing against using them. After all, going to Google Books requires the same amount of effort as the web and journalistic sources I have. I can view them all from the Internet. I haven't ignored books either. Like I said earlier, I went to the library looking for them and I read the results you gave up through page 10. I personally think articles that use books have more integrity. The point I'm trying to make is that almost all the results I read from Google Books talk about hip-hop culture or dance in general (not specifically hip-hop dance) and just like with web results, the lower down the list the result was, the lower the relevance. I'll give you an example of a pretty good source I found that directly addresses hip-hop dance that was still wrong. The following is from That's the joint!: The Hip-hop Studies Reader:
- "Breakdance involved acrobatics that used headspins, backspins, moonwalking, waving, and the robot..."
- This statement is not correct. Moonwalking, waving, and robot are not breakdance moves/styles. They are funk styles that were created/invented/developed in California. Aside from being into hip-hop culture, I know this because I read it on the lectric Boogaloos official website. The founder of this crew, Sam Solomon, created the popping style of dance so they would be the best resource for information about funk styles history considering that they were eye witnesses to it's development. In this case, the web resource is a better source than the book. On a side note, breaking was created on the opposite side of the country in New York. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I understand books are a good resource and I'm not arguing against using them. After all, going to Google Books requires the same amount of effort as the web and journalistic sources I have. I can view them all from the Internet. I haven't ignored books either. Like I said earlier, I went to the library looking for them and I read the results you gave up through page 10. I personally think articles that use books have more integrity. The point I'm trying to make is that almost all the results I read from Google Books talk about hip-hop culture or dance in general (not specifically hip-hop dance) and just like with web results, the lower down the list the result was, the lower the relevance. I'll give you an example of a pretty good source I found that directly addresses hip-hop dance that was still wrong. The following is from That's the joint!: The Hip-hop Studies Reader:
- File:IBEcipher1.png: This fails WP:NFCC#1. IBE series is still on-going; anyone can go to the next year's event and take a photograph.
- Discussion is on the file's talk page. //Gbern3 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Hip-hop dance refers to social or choreographed dance styles primarily danced to hip-hop music or that have evolved as part of hip-hop culture."
- Awkward phrasing with redundant phrasings, "dance style" is evidently a dance. Are there any other dance styles aside from "social or choreographed"? You either dance socially (on your own or with somebody in a casual setting) or not (competition, performance, etc). If "style" is associated with "social or choreograph", then what is "breaking, locking and popping"?
- Breaking, locking, and popping are both. Hip-hop dance is both "social" because there is the freestyle, street element of hip-hop dance and "choreographed" because there's also the dance industry, music video, Hollywood type of hip-hop dance. The difference is explained in the dance industry section. It's like salsa dancing. You can do salsa on the street or in the club where it's freestyle partner dancing, the "social" aspect. You can also do a choreographed salsa routine in a movie, on a TV show, or in competitive ballroom dancing. These two faces to the dance does not exist in other styles this is why I felt I should mention that hip-hop dance has both. You will never see someone go to a club and start doing contemporary or tap dance. Those styles are always done in a studio or on a stage. Are you saying I should take out the phrase "social or choreographed"? //Gbern3 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Suggestion: "Hip-hop dance combines sexuality and counter-culture subversiveness in its movements; it is a combination of the hop dances of the 1920s to 50s, and the hip dances of the 1960s. Dancers move to a music that "emphasizes lyrics and wordplay over melody and harmony" (p. 88 of Forever Young)."
- I really think this definition would confuse a casual reader and that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I don't even know what "counter-culture subversiveness" means and I've done my research on this style of dance. So if I don't know what that means how will the casual reader. That's first issue. The second issue is the first sentence is vague. What are those hop dances from the 20s and hip dances from the 60s? Where did they come from? What did they look like? Third, this statement is misleading because it insinuates that the dance is called hip-hop because of an evolution of social dancing starting in the '20s and not because of the birth of a cultural movement. Hip-hop dance is called hip-hop dance because it came from hip-hop culture. Not because it combines hop dances from the 20s and hip dances from the 60s. The term itself, "hip-hop", was coined by DJ/MC Lovebug Starski in the '70s. The dance started out as just breaking in the 70s, then locking and popping were incorporated, and then studios created a commercial style. There are references for this fact in the article. Last, the page in "Forever Young" you provided as a reference isn't talking about where hip-hop dance came from. It's talking about hip-hop music and hip from the '60s is referring to "a code word for the counter-culture views of the 'hippies'." That source does not directly support the sentence you came up with; it's on the verge of WP:OR. //Gbern3 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest you read closely the source material. It talks of the music and the dance that goes with it. The material speaks of the evolution of how hip-hop comes about. The culture does not just pop up overnight in the 1970s: this is a facet of research (deeper and further range of consideration) that is not typically considered in journalistic and popular sources. Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- The material (starting on page 87) talks about how hip-hop music came about. Even then it states that hip-hop music "...traces its roots to the 1970s reggae and rap music." So it still says it comes from the 1970s. Still not a good source though because the book presents hip-hop music as some other style of music that came about after or from rap music which is impossible because hip-hop is the culture and rap music is an element of that culture. Hip-hop music is rap music. They're the same thing. If hip-hop (the culture) was a person, rap would be it's child along with breaking, DJing, and graffit writing (the other elements of that culture). Does this make sense? Concerning the development, yes, a culture does not just pop up overnight. Can't Stop, Won't Stop talks about this. It talks about the political, social, and economic factors that played into hip-hop culture developing. I'll give you an example of how this happened specifically with the dance. Earl "Snakehips" Tucker was a famous dancer in the 20s and his moves look eerily similar to the popping moves of today. I have a source for this in the article. It came from Dance Spirit magazine and YouTube (external links section). I searched for information about him on Google Books and got eight results. The first one which is probably the the best result is blocked. I can't see/read the page. There are two others that talk about the dance and it's relation to popping/hip-hop but this is limited to one or two sentences in each source. In contrast, Dance Spirit has a full article with more much information. Wouldn't you agree the magazine is a better source? // Gbern3 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest you read closely the source material. It talks of the music and the dance that goes with it. The material speaks of the evolution of how hip-hop comes about. The culture does not just pop up overnight in the 1970s: this is a facet of research (deeper and further range of consideration) that is not typically considered in journalistic and popular sources. Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- What is there no section on the history of hip-hop dances? Its evolution and such?
- There was a very large section on the history but the article was getting too big so in order to follow WP:SPLIT, WP:SS, and WP:TOOLONG policies I moved it to its own article called History of hip-hop dance. Hip-hop dance is 66 bytes, History of hip-hop dance is 38 bytes. Had I keep the two articles together as one it would have been over 100 bytes right now which is too big. That is why there is a link at the top of the article, right before the lead that takes readers to the History of hip-hop dance article if they're interested in learning more. Foundation, the first book that came up in your Google Books list is used in this article. //Gbern3 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Main topic articles are supposed to be a summary of information. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout. History of hip-hop dance should not be dumped at the top of the article. It should have been headlining a section titled "History", "Evolution" or such. Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good catch, I was not aware of that policy. Working on it... // Gbern3 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Main topic articles are supposed to be a summary of information. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout. History of hip-hop dance should not be dumped at the top of the article. It should have been headlining a section titled "History", "Evolution" or such. Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- There was a very large section on the history but the article was getting too big so in order to follow WP:SPLIT, WP:SS, and WP:TOOLONG policies I moved it to its own article called History of hip-hop dance. Hip-hop dance is 66 bytes, History of hip-hop dance is 38 bytes. Had I keep the two articles together as one it would have been over 100 bytes right now which is too big. That is why there is a link at the top of the article, right before the lead that takes readers to the History of hip-hop dance article if they're interested in learning more. Foundation, the first book that came up in your Google Books list is used in this article. //Gbern3 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- There are several instances of dance terminology introduced without consideration of the layman reader. What is a "cipher", which is simply used without context to its meaning or not explained? Links are hazardly introduced, e.g. "however, Apache lines are more appropriate when it is crew versus crew." => so now we have native Americans who form into some sort of queue as "more appropriate" when the operators of a machinery or facility oppose those of another?
- Why do you have to be sarcastic? I don't know if you need these terms to be defined or if you're trying to say something to the effect of "Gbern3, you're WP:OVERLINKing. You should probably take out those wikilinks to 'Apache' and 'crew'. You could confuse people." A cipher is explained in the first paragraph of the lead: Informal freestyle sessions and battles are usually performed in a cipher, a circular dance space that forms naturally once the dancing begins. Do I need to repeat this again later in the article? Is that what you're trying to say? Apache line is also explained: In contrast to a cipher, opposing crews can face each other in this line formation and execute their "burns". There is also the picture that you tagged that illustrates what an Apache line looks like. Maybe I need to explain it further. It took me a while to realize what you were talking about when you brought up "operators of machinery". You're not stupid though. I can tell by your user page with all your barnstars, your DYK rows, and your FA/A/GA article stats that you're intelligent enough to read the rest of the wiktionary entries for the word "crew" and find out that #9 says "A hip-hop group". Also, a crew is defined in the "dance crew" section of the article: A dance crew is a group of street dancers who get together and create dance routines. However, this definition appears halfway through the article; perhaps I should move it up. Are those three terms (cipher, Apache line, and crew) the only ones you found fault with? //Gbern3 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- No malicious sarcasm intended; it is a very frank explanation of what sort of negative effects such haphazard links produce in a reader. It is the author's responsibility to ensure that any linking done should help readers instead of confusing them. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article and not a required reading; readers can and do jump straight into the main body without reading the lede (WP:LEDE). The main body should contain everything a lede has. Placing definitions in the lede without consideration for the main body is a disservice to the readers. Wikitionary are not reliable sources of information (search for FAC delegate SandyGeorgia's comment on the issue) and as an encylopaedia, we would not use informal terminology or jargon to present information to our readers, which "crew" is.[1] Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- ???? Now I'm real confused. That's a whole new discussion. Are you saying Wikipedia shouldn't use any jargon/informal terms? Isn't that the point of an encyclopedia—to explain things? Do you know how many articles there are on Wikipedia about informal/jargon topics or that use informal/jargon terms? What about the physics, math, or engineering FA articles? I'm sure those use jargon terms and I haven't even read them. The article on new school hip hop talks about rap battles. "Battles" is an informal term but it is absolutely necessary to incorporate it in the article to really understand rap music. Two things: (1) "Crew" is a crucial term in this article. Rock Steady Crew, Electric Boogaloos, The Lockers, Dynamic Rockers, New York City Breakers, Mightly Zulu Kings... I can't even imagine hip-hop dance w/o them. I'm not sure how much you know about hip-hop dance so let me explain. Crews are absolutely essential to hip-hop dance, especially to the development of different dance moves (<--Note, I got this fact from the book Can't Stop, Won't Stop). Jargon or informal, I don't see how you can have an article about hip-hop dance without using/mentioning "crews", what they are, and who the influential ones were. Are you saying I shouldn't use "crew" or describe what crews are in the article because crews are informal? Hip-hop dance itself is informal when speaking of the casual, social, colloquial aspect. How will the reader really understand hip-hop dance without knowing what crews are? You bring up FA. I don't plan on taking this article to FA but if I did, do you really think this article would become featured if I didn't mention crews?
- (2) Wiktionary is not reliable? Really? That's actually kind'of sad. One of their core policies is the one that you've been criticizing me on (I mean that in the constructive criticism way): they require all of their entries to be durable archived WT:CFI. You tell me that Wiktionary, which uses Google Books (random example 1 and random example 2), is not a reliable source. But you also say that this article is flawed because it doesn't use a lot of the sources found on Google Books??? Can you see my POV (as far as my confusion) as to what I'm suppose to do with this feedback? You got me going in circles my friend. // Gbern3 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- No malicious sarcasm intended; it is a very frank explanation of what sort of negative effects such haphazard links produce in a reader. It is the author's responsibility to ensure that any linking done should help readers instead of confusing them. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article and not a required reading; readers can and do jump straight into the main body without reading the lede (WP:LEDE). The main body should contain everything a lede has. Placing definitions in the lede without consideration for the main body is a disservice to the readers. Wikitionary are not reliable sources of information (search for FAC delegate SandyGeorgia's comment on the issue) and as an encylopaedia, we would not use informal terminology or jargon to present information to our readers, which "crew" is.[1] Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why do you have to be sarcastic? I don't know if you need these terms to be defined or if you're trying to say something to the effect of "Gbern3, you're WP:OVERLINKing. You should probably take out those wikilinks to 'Apache' and 'crew'. You could confuse people." A cipher is explained in the first paragraph of the lead: Informal freestyle sessions and battles are usually performed in a cipher, a circular dance space that forms naturally once the dancing begins. Do I need to repeat this again later in the article? Is that what you're trying to say? Apache line is also explained: In contrast to a cipher, opposing crews can face each other in this line formation and execute their "burns". There is also the picture that you tagged that illustrates what an Apache line looks like. Maybe I need to explain it further. It took me a while to realize what you were talking about when you brought up "operators of machinery". You're not stupid though. I can tell by your user page with all your barnstars, your DYK rows, and your FA/A/GA article stats that you're intelligent enough to read the rest of the wiktionary entries for the word "crew" and find out that #9 says "A hip-hop group". Also, a crew is defined in the "dance crew" section of the article: A dance crew is a group of street dancers who get together and create dance routines. However, this definition appears halfway through the article; perhaps I should move it up. Are those three terms (cipher, Apache line, and crew) the only ones you found fault with? //Gbern3 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
In light of the above, I believe the article is not yet comprehensive; it is lacking research from scholarly texts. Consideration should also be made for the reader who may or may not know the terms used in certain dance styles. Jappalang (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about FA. I asked for feedback on copy-editing and on dance terms that may need to be clarified which you mentioned at the end but I can't tell from your use of sarcasm about machine operators whether or not you are genuinely confused and need clarification or if you're still talking down to me. I really wished you would've actually helped me improve the article. Did you read the entire article? You didn't say anything about the lead, the "impact" section which is very large, or the footnotes. I'm guessing that means you found no problems in these areas but I don't know. Consideration should also be made for the reader who may or may not know the terms used in certain dance styles. <-- I know that. That's why I brought it up above when I asked for this review. Again, I wish you would have actually helped me instead of repeating back to me what I asked for. //Gbern3 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Achieving higher standards is an improvement and the FA-standard is the example of what "exemplifies our very best work" (WP:WIAFA). I do not have to nor am I obliged to pick through every little bit of this article. I saw what I felt were its greatest obvious deficiencies and pointed it out with suggestions to improve them. If you do not appreciate them, so be it. You are free to disregard what I have written here, or to stop, think, look through, and analyze the provided information. Either way, I am done. Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're done? Now I feel like I've been talking to myself in my responses. What do you mean, you don't have to "pick through every little bit of this article" (this is why I don't like it when you're sarcastic, I'm assuming that you mean you don't have to read the whole article). Doesn't a peer review involve reading the entire article? Isn't that what it is: an examination of the article? Aren't you doing a disservice to your "reviewee" (not just me, whoever) by not reading the whole thing? I don't get it. All I wanted was some help. All the work you've done and time you've spent getting all those other articles up to FA/GA/A standard and you give up on an editor who only wants a peer review. How am I suppose to get feedback on this history/evolution section I'm suppose to create if you just give up. I wasn't going to go to FA anyway so I suppose it doesn't matter in the end. Well, if this article/discussion really bothers you that much, no point in being stressed. Thanks for the suggestions you did give. I'll go ahead and close/archive the discussion. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Achieving higher standards is an improvement and the FA-standard is the example of what "exemplifies our very best work" (WP:WIAFA). I do not have to nor am I obliged to pick through every little bit of this article. I saw what I felt were its greatest obvious deficiencies and pointed it out with suggestions to improve them. If you do not appreciate them, so be it. You are free to disregard what I have written here, or to stop, think, look through, and analyze the provided information. Either way, I am done. Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)