The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 [1].

---

Hip-hop dance[edit]

Hip-hop dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Hip-hop dance/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Gbern3 (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria and that it gives a thorough overview of an urban dance style that has had a big commercial impact not just in the U.S. but also on an international level. I'm actually surprised at myself for nominating this article for FA because when I first started editing it, that was not my intention. At the time I began I just wanted it to be accurate. Last year, an editor translated the article to Portugese and it received FA status on the Portugese language Wikipedia. Earlier this year a large portion of it was reprinted in a book and the publishers correctly attributed Wikipedia for it (see talk page). Last month I found another book that copied a small portion of the article almost verbatim without mentioning Wikipedia or creative commons at all. I do feel this article meets the criteria and for this reason added to the Portugese FA and the two publications (the second book being the catalyst), I felt it was time to take this article to FAC. I do not think any details have been left out but please note that this article has been split twice into History of hip-hop dance and Hip-hop theater. As a reviewer if you feel the article is lacking in either area be advised these topics needed to be split off in order to keep the Hip-hop dance article from becoming too big. // Gbern3 (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - thank you for your work on this article, but unfortunately I don't agree that it currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

• Given the length of the article, the lead should be at minimum 3 paragraphs, more likely 4
  • Working on it... Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The last two sentences of the current lead suggest potential OR and neutrality problems
  • May I ask why. I have a section in the article for all that is mentioned in these sentences. "To some, hip-hop dance may only be a form of entertainment or a hobby (entertainment and dance crews sections). To others it is a lifestyle: a way to be active in physical fitness (fitness section) or competitive dance (international competitions section) and a way to make a living by dancing professionally (dance industry section). Further down you gave me feedback about the flow. This sentence flows (well, transitions would be a better word) into the rest of the article. If you insist, I'll remove it. I'm only asking because I want to understand why it's OR/NPOV. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the tone of these sentences that bothers me, not that they're unsourced or irrelevant. The tone used here is very journalistic, whereas we would prefer a neutral and encyclopedic tone. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Internationally, hip-hop dance has a particularly strong influence in France, South Korea, and United Kingdom." - aside from the grammar and overlinking problems here, you've not yet mentioned the US
  • Removed the extra comma. The paragraph immediately preceding the one you quoted from talks about the U.S. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still a grammar problem - should be the United Kingdom. However, the main issue here is globalization - en.wiki is an international encyclopedia, so when you say "internationally" as meaning countries outside the US, that's assuming a US-centric viewpoint, which not all readers will have. Furthermore, though it's implied, the preceding paragraph doesn't mention what country is being discussed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. Can't believe I missed "the". //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Unlike toprock, uprock was not performed to break beats" - but you have the emergence of toprock preceding the invention of break beats?
  • I can definitely see how this could be confusing. Toprock at that point was still elaborations on the "Good Foot" dance but that isn't clear in the paragraph. Changed/Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:MOS issues - overlinking, dash/hyphen problems, etc
  • Removed several wikilinks. Not sure what to do about dash/hyphens. Can you provide a specific example of where these are used improperly? Another editor fixed the dash/hyphen problems. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still problems here. For example, in International competitions (and there's that word "international" again), you link the UK but not London - if anything, should be the reverse. A couple points down, you mention a "Dutch based international breaking competition" - should be "Dutch-based". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why it's bad to use the word "international" for this section when five different countries (including the U.S.) are discussed? Of the 11 competitions listed four of them are based in the U.S., two are held in France, two in the U.K., one in the Netherlands, one in Korea, and another that changes countries every year. In addition, the participants at these competitions come from several different countries not just the host nation. This is why I didn't put Vibe Dance Competition in this section. It's only held in the U.S. and only crews and dance teams from the U.S. compete. That is not international. I don't get why I shouldn't call this section international competitions when it's about international competitions. It's a direct description of what the section is about and it goes along with the globalization view that you (constructively) criticized me about not having earlier. I don't get it. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I got it right this time when it comes to the wikilinks. I went to WP:MOSLINK#Overlinking and underlinking and found out why this article had problems. I don't know why I didn't read this before. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• POV/informal phrasings - for example, "it was the Latinos (specifically Puerto Ricans)[4] that kept the momentum of breaking alive". Maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone at all times
  • ? Is this really POV? I have a sources for this. This is actually true. How can it be POV if it's supported with citations? It's the same as saying African Americans created breaking, locking, and popping. I thought it would be appropriate to give credit where credit is due. I rephrased it slightly and took out the word "specifically". I hope this is better. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, it's the tone here, not the sourcing, that is at issue - specifically, "kept the momentum of breaking alive". Like the sentences in the lead, this phrasing is journalistic, almost editorial. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Article is in need of a thorough copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow
  • Working on it. I wanted to get this copy-edited before submitting it for featured article but as you may already know there is a huge backlog so I didn't. Instead I actually paid a professional to do it via smarthinking.com. I got the mark-up back today and will incorporate the changes he made into the article. He mentioned comma splices and flow but didn't say anything about dash/hyphen problems which is why I am asking for feedback. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I really don't mean to be discouraging here, but...maybe you should ask for your money back? There are still considerable problems. I've copyedited one section as an example. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... Is it really that bad? I see a few improvements like how you changed the sentence about Toni Basil winning an award from the passive voice but it looks like you replaced a lot of what I had with synonyms (consistently vs. frequently, brief vs. quick, distinguish vs. identify, at the same time vs. simultaneously). Why is one word better than the other when they mean the same thing? I saw the change from "other than" to "in addition to" which I thought was a good catch considering they can have different meanings but at the end of the day the sentence as a whole has the same meaning: members of The Lockers who are not Don Campbell. Then there was "a dancer" vs. "dancers". Why is the plural better? Are these really ce problems? It looks like preference. So I went to the wikipedia article on Common English usage misconceptions#Grammar to figure out why I don't understand some of your changes but instead I found out there's nothing wrong with using the passive voice (fourth bullet point). I do appreciate you providing an example but I don't understand why the ce in this article is so bad based on your example. The best I can do at this point is resubmit the article to the copy-editor I had at smarthinking.com with your mark-ups highlighted and wait for feedback. He has a degree in this stuff. To answer your hidden question, yes, "locker" is an appropriate term to use for a dancer who performs locking. Other examples: popper for a dancer who does popping, breaker/b-boy/b-girl for a dancer who does breaking, krumper for a dancer who does krumping, etc. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I got the second mark-up back from smarthinking.com as well as an additional mark-up from a separate company I found. I started implementing the ce changes yesterday and will continue to do so until complete. Hopefully these revisions are better. I will update this page when I'm done making all the changes. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Magazines and newspapers should be italicized
  • ?? They are. The publications I mention are LA Weekly, Dance magazine, the Bronx Journal, and Dance Spirit magazine. They're all italicized. Did I miss one? Found them. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not done consistently - for example, Las Vegas Sun. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. I thought you were referring to publications in the body of the article. It's fixed now and I went through all the refs three times to make sure they were consistent so hopefully I didn't miss any. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't need wiktionary links for common terms like "illusory"
  • Removed/Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Being a part of a crew was the only way to learn when these styles began because they were not taught in studios. Forming and participating in a dance crew is how you practiced, improved, made friends, and built relationships. In the beginning, crews were neighborhood-based and would engage in battles in their respective cities. Today, crews can battle in organized competitions with other crews from around the country and around the world." - source?
  • Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Crews still form based on friendships and neighborhoods. They also form for other reasons such as theme, gender, ethnicity, and dance style. Crews are not exclusive. It is common for street dancers to be involved in more than one crew" - source? Check for other unsourced statements
  • Hmmm, I guess I missed those. Will look for a source and update this page when I find one. Done, sort'of. I gave examples. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Use ""pp." and endashes for ranges
  • Good catch. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? this? Check for other potentially problematic sources
  • Replaced/Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• When I try to access [www.electricboogaloos.com/knowledge.html this site], my security software informs me that it is a known attack site
  • Well that's not good. I don't know how that happened. I also receive this message when I go to the website but I did not when I archived the page last year. I use Firefox and according to Firefox this activity has happened in the past 90 days so I guess this is recent. Anyhow, I removed it. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't assume an American-only audience, or one familiar with the topic. Be accessible to all readers as much as possible.
  • My copy-editor gave me specific feedback in the article about this bullet point so I will incorporate his changes and update this page when complete. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not done, gave you a few examples above. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The examples have been addressed. However, I will revisit this point after I receive the second mark-up from smarthinking.com //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Avoid WP:PRIMARY and self-published sources where possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? Can you please be more specific? I think of birth certificates, death records, deed records, and marriage licenses as primary sources. I don't use any of those in the article. Which ones are you referring to? //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, primary refers to sources "written by people who are directly involved" that "an insider's view" - for example, citing a competition's website for information on its history. Obviously this isn't always a problem (the example I give, for instance, is fine), but you a) need to be careful in how you use such sources, and b) prefer independent sources wherever possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what to do with this feedback considering you said there's nothing wrong with the way I use primary sources here. I can't tell from your response what is actually incorrect. So I went to WP:PSTS and based on the primary sources bullet point there's still nothing wrong with the way I use these sources. Done (I think?). //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be a while before someone would comment on the article considering the length so thank you for reading it and leaving feedback. I wasn't expecting a reply just two days after I nominated it. I guess I'm use to the wait time at peer review. Thank you for being patient too as far as waiting on me to respond. I was celebrating Thanksgiving so I did not respond to your comments as quickly as I normally would. Once I implement the changes that my copy-editor provided on the mark-up he sent back to me, I will strike through those comments so that you know they are done. // Gbern3 (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the excess bolding for readability. Please sign your comments, and also, don't strike reviewer comments (see WP:FAC instructions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? I didn't strike my reviewer's comments. Confused. I actually thought making my comments bold helped with readability because it distinguished my comments from Nikkimaria's. I guess not though. I didn't know I was suppose to sign each bullet point; I thought one signature at the end would be sufficient so my apologies on that one. I will go back and fix this... Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is very jumbled and rather poorly written, with many basic errors such as the grocer's apostrophe in "Puerto Ricans maintained it's development when it was considered a passing fad in the late '70s". And what on Earth does this word salad mean? "Other than San Francisco bay area pride, turfing maintained its endurance due to local turf dance competitions and local youth programs that promote turfing as a form of physical activity." Malleus Fatuorum 04:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think the major issue is the page needs some copyediting to get it up to encyclopedic standard, as there are a lot of wording issues. Some other specific concerns:

• "It would be historically inaccurate to say that the funk styles have always been considered hip-hop." - this would need a cite
  • This sentence is an introduction to the rest of the paragraph—a topic sentence. The sentences that immediately follow this statement, one of which you quoted directly below, prove this sentence to be true. //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Due to the amount of attention locking and popping were receiving, the media brought these styles under the "breakdance" label causing confusion about their origin.[17][18]" - "Media" is a very nonspecific term, and more analysis on this point, I think, is necessary to explain what kind of media and how the confusion took place and impacted things.
  • This is a good observation. I will try to look into this and see what I can find out. I'm not sure I'll be able to deliver anything considering the citations I used for those statements came from books which also used the general term "media" rather than a specific publication. //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• They were created on the west coast independent from breaking and came out of the funk cultural movement rather than from the hip-hop cultural movement." - this also needs a cite,
  • This sentence has already been proven true. Similar to the first sentence, this sentence closes that paragraph. It was proved true earlier in the section with this statement --> "The funk styles refers to several street dance styles created in California in the 1970s that were danced to funk music.[14]". //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is primarily written in US perspective, though the international competition section is helpful, but I fear it might be better suited for a list.
  • ?? It's already in a bulleted list. Why move it (<--I honestly don't mean that in a rude way)? //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree it's a bit jumbled. I think you've got some of the basics down, but I'd try to reorganize it a little. I hate to suggest this given the article's history, but it could use another split so "Impact" isn't so prominent, and there's a more even coverage of history, technique and impact. —Ed!^(talk) 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You want me to split the International Competitions section off to a separate page to be a stand-alone list and then split off the Impact section to a separate article?? I realize you clearly have much more experience than me on FAC but doing that would make this article immediately fail criterion 1b. Furthermore, there is already another article about the history of hip-hop dance so making the history section larger in this one would be counterproductive to splitting off the history part of the article in the first place (I think, but I've been wrong before). I appreciate your comments because I believe you are trying to be helpful. However, everything in me says this is not a good idea. //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.