Wikipedia:Peer review/Rapping/archive2

Rapping[edit]

Note: Old nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rapping/Archive1.

I am putting this up for peer review because a lot of time has been put into making it verified, well written, clear, and I feel that it is very close to featured quality if not there already.--Urthogie 15:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lead is too short
There are too many lists, which should be converted into prose (WP:WIAFA requires brilliant prose)
Can a history section be provided?

Thanks, AndyZ 02:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead, according to Wikipedia:Lead section, is the right size. As far as there being lists, thats because there's not much to say about most of those, other than one sentance. The best way to display it is a list. A history section is provided "Roots and influences"--Urthogie 09:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the history of Rapping ends in 1969 (by the way, according to WP:CONTEXT, years without full dates should not be linked)? The article has 25,669 characters- according to WP:LEAD it should have at least 2 paragraphs minimum, and per WP:WIAFA the lead should be a brief overview of the entire article. Subject matter looks okay in list form, but I'm maintaining that "Principles of writing and delivering raps" should be converted to prose (if you browse through WP:FAC, lists are a big cause for objection). Again, thanks, AndyZ 20:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for advice. I'll try and apply this. One thing though-- the reason the roots section ends in 1969 is because thats around when the first hip hop starts coming out--1970. Do you think there should be an additional section on how it went from the roots to the old school rhymes and from the old school rhymes to the golden age rhyme styles, then to the modern rapping?--Urthogie 21:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the lead states that "rapping has increased dramatically in popularity since the early 1970s". WP:WIAFA requires that articles be comprehensive, so that would definitely be a good addition. AndyZ 22:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've done everything but turn the lists into prose. I think that the most effective way to convey the information in both cases is lists.--Urthogie 12:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article.. It might look a bit better if you put some images on the left, and some on the right, especially in the 'principles' section. CasualFighter 21:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the style guideline is to avoid putting images on the left of lists.--Urthogie 21:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That actually makes a lot of sense, since list formatting disappears if you put images on the left.. I can think of only three alternative approaches that might make it look a little better:

Moving the images so that there is text between images (as opposed to images sitting on top of each other);
Making the images the same width;
Changing the list to a series of ====headings==== and moving some images to the left.

I say, play around with it, see if you like any of those configurations better...

CasualFighter 14:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers 1 and 2 are possibilities, but number 3 is not, because that would create section stubs.--Urthogie 14:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]