Wikipedia:Peer review/Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo/archive1

Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to eventually list it at the good article nominations page. I know this step is only necessary for potential featured article candidates but I think a peer review would be good to have anyway since FA criteria includes what's required for GA criteria. Just so you're aware, I recreated this article from Tabitha and Napoleon's individual pages which I merged. See the talk page for details. Since the article is basically one biography about two people I would like feedback on the flow and of course the grammar. 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. It's not a long article, only two pages printed. It shouldn't take much time to review. I would appreciate any comments.

Thanks, // Gbern3 (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Gwern

• Does it really matter who their agents are?  Done

It doesn't.

• 'involvement' is pretty vague; what do they actually do at this Monsters thing?  Done

Removed from the lead.

• What made them abandon conventional careers for dance? As written, it sounds like a crazy hormonal-in-love fling.  Done

Good catch. I never noticed that. Added explanation of how they got into the dancing professionally.

• More dates. As it is, the reader is adrift. By the time the 2 have graduated, are we in the '80s? The '90s? How long've they been at this? Without going back to their birth year and working forward, hard to even get the decade.  Done

Another good catch. Added.

• Choreography section seems to mix normal CV material with subjective description of whatever their signature style is.

??? I don't know if you're just commenting or telling me to fix something. I name-dropped musical acts they've worked with in the first paragraph because it adds to why they're notable choreographers. As far as the description of their style, that was a direct quote taken from Dance Spirit magazine. I don't think there's a better way to describe it in my own words.

• Might want to re-sectionize. 'Projects' is obviously just where you threw everything miscellaneous, even though it might be more sensible to combine all the movies and TV and video stuff - why is their fashion line mixed up with exercise DVDs? ✗ Not done

I thought about your suggestion and I don't think it would be wise to combine movies, TV, and video. The entire choreography section list their TV work. Other than TV, they've only choreographed one movie Legally Blond (also in the choreography section). There's only two other movies mentioned: MOVE in which they're just being interviewed not dancing and Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo which only had Napoleon as an extra when he was 16. I can't put Breakin' 2 or MOVE in the choreography section because they didn't choreograph either of these films. If I put the movies in their own section there would be large gaps in time considering there's almost a 30 year difference between Breakin' 2 and MOVE. So I don't think this is wise.

The two exercise videos only featured Tabitha, one of which she was just a back-up dancer in. I don't think either of these videos are notable enough to be put in their own "video" section especially since it doesn't make up a significant chunk of their choreography work or their career in general. I thought about making a "movies/video" section but since there's several years in between each and since none of these movies or exercise videos are related to each other in anyway I really don't think the paragraph would flow very well.

Breakin' 2 - 1984, Napoleon only as extra; Legally Blond - 2001, choreographed together; exercise DVDs 2007, Tabitha only, host in one, dancer in another; MOVE - 2010, interviewed.

In addition if I made multiple sections for these side jobs I know some other reviewer would complain about my T.O.C being too long. I think it makes more sense to have MOVE, Tabitha's exercise DVDs, and their dancewear line under "projects". Like you said earlier, it's all miscellaneous. It doesn't fit anywhere else. However, I did rearrange this section so that the dancewear paragraph comes first, followed by exercise DVDs and then MOVE. It's more chronological this way.

• 'Married life' makes more sense as part of 'History'. We read the intro, history, career, projects - and then married life? What? ✗ Not done

--Gwern (contribs) 13:30 3 October 2009 (GMT)

I've seen this done sooooooo many times in other wikipedia biographical articles; where there's a section for 'early life' and another section for 'personal life' (there isn't a history section in this article, it's called 'early life'). Examples: Christina Aguilera, Antonio Sabàto, Jr., Ozzy Osbourne, Kanye West, J. D. Salinger, Anne Rice, Angela Bassett, Tommy Hilfiger, Sofia Coppola... I'm sure there's more. Salinger and West both have GA status. I just named it 'married life' in this article rather than 'personal life' because the entire section only talks about their marriage relationship rather than how many kids they have, people they're related to, illnesses they've dealt with, etc.

Thanks for peer reviewing this article. I wasn't expecting a response for at least a month after I posted this request. I read the article over after making most of the changes you suggested and I think it's much clearer now. // Gbern3 (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)