Talk:Music of Hawaii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the "World music" set of articles nominated for Version 0.7. Discuss this nomination, or see the set nominations page for more details.

	Music of Hawaii was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 23, 2005 Good article nominee Listed September 10, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

	Music of Hawaii is within the scope of the WikiProject Regional and national music, an attempt at building a resource on the music of all the peoples and places of the world. Please visit the project's listing to see the article's assessment and to help us improve the article as we push to 1.0.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

	Hawaii Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Music of Hawaii, or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
	This article requires expansion. Please help expand the section or topic described in the comments or talk page.

I wrote this, but my computer logged me out. Tuf-Kat

In the course of tweaking a few details and adding a reference to Elizabeth Tatar's slack key article in Hawaiian Music and Musicians, I seem to have entangled one of the other notes, so that now the Tatar reference is somehow combined with the one to Kanahele by way of Manuel. RLetson 06:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is your diff. It doesn't look like you actually added any footnotes. Add <ref>Tatar, pg. 1</ref> and it should work fine. (or am I misunderstanding something?) Tuf-Kat 11:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Note #8 is the one that seems munged--it seems to be inserting the Tatar reference into the "Kanahele quoted in Manuel" one. There's something I'm missing about how the Notes pick up data from the References. If it were my own article, I'd replace that "quoted in" Reference with a direct one, since it seems to be pointing to one particular section of Kanahele's Introduction to Hawaiian Music and Musicians (which is within reach of my keyboard). I'm also trying to decode the note/biblio style and match it with what I used to teach 20 years ago in freshman English--a good many of the References are likely to wind up pointing to articles in HMM (which has the format of an encyclopedia with signed articles) in the form AUTHOR, TITLE, in HMM. RLetson 17:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you mean. I added footnote 8. I have the Manuel book, in which Peter Manuel discusses something said by Elizabeth Tatar in an article in the George Kanahele book. I made the footnote the way it is -- if you have the Kanahele book and can check that Tatar does indeed verify the info in the paragraphs, then the footnote should be simplified to remove the thing about Manuel (which I've gone ahead and done, since you rather imply that you've read the article and presumably didn't see any problems). I've tweaked the references in question. Tuf-Kat 01:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you put the below into the article, it will create a footnote with the text between the <ref></ref> tags.

This is a statement. <ref>Source for statement, pg. 88</ref>

If you put the text below into the article, it will create multiple footnotes that link to the same note in the "Notes" section
This is a statement. <ref name=Source>Source for statement, pg. 89</ref>
The references listed in the "References" section are not linked through any technical means to the footnotes. Everything cited in a footnote should have an entry in the "References" section. Citing numerous essays in the Kanahele book is fine, but consider removing the entries in the "References" section for each individual chapter author (as long as the book itself is still there); the chapter author and title should then be in the footnote (e.g. Tatar, Elizabeth, "Slack-Key", pgs. 350 - 360 in Kanahele, Hawaiian Music and Musicians ). This will prevent the "References" section from becoming bloated with dozens of entries for each article in the book.

• Hope that helps. Feel free to ask me a question. Thanks for working on this article! (I've been meaning to try and clean it up for eventual Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, but haven't yet gotten around to it -- if you'd like to focus on this article, I'd be glad to help out where I can, though it sounds like you have a lot more knowledge and more comprehensive sources than I.)Tuf-Kat 23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So I'm too familiar with wiki syntax, and I'm sure I could learn if I could spend an hour or two here, but what about the Royal Hawaiian Band as a music institution?

If you're not sure how to add it, just write the relevant info in ordinary words here on the talk page, and say where you got the information from. Somebody will format it and insert it into the article. Tuf-Kat 01:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hip-hop commercials?

Is it just me, or is the hip-hop section getting to be a list of promotional mentions and links? The wikilinks I checked (Mother Goose, COD) point to articles with no hip-hop connection, while the external link/notes point to commercial or personal sites. Quadmag looks like a blog rather than a magazine, and DJ Elite's links are clearly personal (a Myspace page) and promotional. Candidates for editing-out? I'd rather see someone familiar with hip-hop in the Islands do it--but I'd urge that person to be pretty rigorous about keeping this descriptive, sourced, and non-promotional.RLetson 02:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted what I take to be promotional links in this section--is there any reason not to remove links to MySpace and similar personal/self-promotional sites? I'm not questioning who ought or ought not to be mentioned as part of this music scene--just the propriety of self-promoting material. (For example, a newspaper or magazine story identifying them is a different matter.) RLetson 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I went further and deleted the whole section. I was trying to rewrite the section but without all the redlinks; each time I checked out one of the named artists or DJs I found there was no Wikipedia page at all to support it. From an outsider viewpoint it seems no notable musicians are involved in the genre. Binksternet (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I question the quality of this article based on the Good article criteria. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article review. Issues needing to be address are listed there. Regards, T Rex | talk 11:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The result was to Delist the article. An archive of the discussion can be found here. Drewcifer 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • arguably
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Viriditas (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)