User talk:Drsulliv

Everything looks in order... Pmedward (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment and signature you left at User:SEAustin look great, but there is also a 'User talk' page, User_talk:SEAustin, which is typically the area where most of the discussion with a particular user would be most appropriate. (This is something you'll do more of later in the semester when we start peer reviews for others' Wikipedia entries.) Pmedward (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rasta cahe 71 peer review

Everything looks like it is going pretty well. I feel like this is an accurate description on his background information. The strengths of this wiki page is that you have a good outline of what you are doing and when finished it will be a Wikipedia page with some authority. The weakness of this page is the fact that it is not done yet. It would be nice for you to post some music tracks from DJ Screw. Also it is a known fact that chopped and screwed originated in Houston Texas and DJ Screw was the originator but you never stated where D.J screw was born. Other than that this page is pretty good. Overall this page seems accurate and non-biased. The suggestions that I have are for you to upload some music from DJ Screw so everyone can hear what he sounds like and can have access to it on your Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasta cahe 71 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drsulliv: Robert Earl "DJ Screw" Davis

As a first note, it looks as though this page already exists on Wikipedia, although I’m pretty sure you’re already aware of that; many elements such as references, image, and information have been copied and pasted from this page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Screw) I discovered this after writing most of my review.

Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard

I’m very impressed with the writing style throughout this page. Your prose is both professional and absorbing for the reader, with no striking grammatical errors to note. The variety between adjacent sentence structures makes for a very flowing read, which is crucial for Wikipedia articles; after all, who would want to have to pick apart concepts while scanning for basic information?

Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context [and what might be missing?]

Overall, I have very high hopes for this page; the Table of Contents shows that your planned outline of sections and subsections will be both thorough and comprehensive, and at the same time will fit into typical Wikipedia standards of DJ and music artist pages.

Although at first I thought a possible change might be to reverse the order of “Legacy” and “Death”, but a closer look at your introduction specifies that The Originator didn’t attain a wider level of recognition until after his death; for this reason I agree with your decision to discuss death first. At the same time, it might be beneficial to preface this section with a brief description of his life before death, ignoring the musical component; examples might include where he grew up, how his family environment might have been, and what he did for a living. Did he go to school? Did he have a close family and/or marriage? A good place to start might be simply Googling “DJ Screw” (“The Originator” appears far too often with little to no relevancy to this DJ in particular, and Googling “DJ Screw” “The Originator” only yields torrents of one of his albums, “Diary of The Originator”). Checking out details on “All Music” (allmusic.com) is another great option.

Well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate [are there a variety of sources/viewpoints?]

A typical Wikipedia trend is to stick references in as many places as humanly possible. If you make a statement, defend its veracity! (This has become a mental cheer while writing our own page.) I recommend clicking on the “Cite” tab of the “Edit” screen, which saves you plenty of time and sanity: Simply enter the citation information and click “Insert” to avoid delving too deep in Wikipedia markup language.

Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias

No bias or partiality seen. If you stay close to your proposed Table of Contents, I don’t see how bias could come into play throughout the assignment: Most of these sections and subsections deal primarily with facts rather than opinions, let alone controversial topics. As long as you continue to cite and reference regularly, you’re good as gold!

Formatted appropriated: it follows Wikipedia style guidelines.

As mentioned above, your proposed outline of topics is fantastic. I think that the variety and multitude of matters will give you the benefit of brevity: Nothing irks readers more than a tediously long Wikipedia section. As long as you continue to write concisely and to the point, this will turn out fantastically!

One suggestion I might make is to add more links to other Wikipedia pages, assuming (although perhaps incorrectly) that your readers haven no knowledge of music-speak whatsoever. An example might be to put “DJ” in double brackets ([[ ]]) to redirect confused users to a page describing disc jockeys. “Houston, Texas”, “hip-hop”, “mixtapes”, “codeine”, “intoxication”, “Valium”, “PCP”, and “Smithville, Texas” are also great choices. If in doubt, search on Wikipedia for a related page! If readers stumble upon a certain concept while reading, they’ll want easy access to an explanation or definition. Again, this takes very little work on your part beyond simply plugging in [[ ]] brackets!

One last comment: It might be a good idea to edit the Wikipedia page “The Originator” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Originator) to change “three musicians” to “four”, then add DJ Screw along with a link to your page. Spread the word of your hard work! Jbodford (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Review[edit]

I also seem to have found this page when writing my review. I am almost 100% sure it already exists, so just look again to be sure.

To jump right in, I am very impressed with your initial organization. The page seems to have a logical progression of ideas, and you picture and detailed information are neatly laid out. Your table of contents show that you have a clear idea of where you want to go, and once you get some information down, you should have a very solid article.

It terms of bias, it is clear that you like this artist. However, it is important to remain unbiased. Be sure to stick as many sources down at the bottom of your page. This will increase the likelihood that wikipedia will allow your page to remain active. So far, your writing is impartial, but be sure to continue to think objectively. If you use value-laden language, wikipedia may delete your whole page for what they call "promotional value". This just means that your wikipedia page would read like an advertisement. Please don't do that.

One other way to make your wikipedia page seem more legitimate is by adding more links to other wikipedia pages. Some ideas might be other rappers, record companies, performance venues, etc. These links can only help your credibility.

Just make sure that this exact page doesn't already exist, as there is a similar one already on wikipedia.

(DanpUNC (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

The contained information of this article was very well written and highly professional, not unlike a sponsored webpage for say NBC. The content was very engaging and genuinely made me want more information about his impressive and highly influential career.

Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context [and what might be missing?]

Clearly there is a lot of information that still needs to be added to this article, but I think your group is definitely on the right path. I would recommend adding more biographical information, related to how he came up and ho influenced his musical style, possibly references to other Houston artists he helped make famous. Also a sample list of songs he's edited or influenced with his style.

Well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; [are there a variety of sources/viewpoints?]

I thought the group effectively used references and cited sources successfully. The photograph and subsequent links to other pages worked well for the subject and linked to very relevant wikis. I would like to see more in line links to outside material but nive use of the headline

Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and

There was no bias. The article was informative without speculating, even in presenting the fact that fans were suspicious of the cause of death, the article remains neutral and speaks in a matter-of-fact tone

Formatted appropriated: it follows Wikipedia style guidelines.

Followed typical Wikipedia format: introducing the subject, dividing the page into sub-sections of material, with a colorful background information section at the top of the page, and references cited at the base of the page. If anything, I would recommend possibly reversing the order of the subsections, not beginning with the death of the character, which may be best served as the final tie-in. Overall I think you've got a great start and the most difficult part is setting up the page. Now all you have to do is fill in the blanks with relevant information.Coreyjweb (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review for peer editing assignment

Well-written: I think that the page is well written. Also it is very concise and to the point. Generally, this is an attractive quality of Wikipedia pages because in today's society people want more information in less time. That is exactly what this wiki page displays, only the necessary information and no irrelevant details.

Comprehensive: The page was easy to understand. It was well organized and showed logical progression. The table of contents at the top of the page helps the reader to search faster and summarize the information.

Well-researched: I think that the information that is currently published on the page is well researched and valid. However, there is obviously more information needed but your group is on the right track. Also, I think if the group were to add more sources it would make help support the accuracy of the page.

Neutral: Obviously you must be a fan of this person since you choose to create a wiki page on him. So, my only concern is that when completing this page you should refrain from bias comments and thoughts. Also, you should be unbiased in what information you choose to add, not just his accomplishments but his major life events in there entirety.

Formatted appropriated: As far as I know the page follows Wikipedia guidelines and format. I do like how the page is set from a aesthetic stand point. It looks very professional and similar to many other official Wikipedia pages. Also it shows logical progression and good organization.

Leviburt (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

Peer Review by Ccogar[edit]

Although there isn't actually much text yet, the organization/outline you've created is excellent and very reminiscent of other Wikipedia pages I've seen. The side column is also great. The article seems well-written and comprehensive, but watch for repetitiveness ("in addition" used twice in a row). I do feel that the beginning paragraph could be a little more detailed and unbiased. Phrases like "central figure" and "now-famous" are things that could easily be contested by others. Make sure to remain impartial throughout the article.

Otherwise, you're off to a good start. You seem to be in compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines and the linking in the article is well done. More research is definitely necessary to complete the page, but if you just maintain the quality you already have, I don't think you'll have a problem.

Ccogar (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review by Psjenest[edit]

Everything about this entry seems to be in order. The page looks very organized at the point and it is obvious that space was left to add more information. An interesting introduction id helpful in understanding what the entry is about. I think that it would be interesting to learn about what he did before he was a DJ and what he did to become a DJ. Also information between his start and his death is obviously needed. They did have good resources and cited them well. It is apparent that this will be a good final production  entry.Psjenest (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review by Psjenest[edit]

Everything about this entry seems to be in order. The page looks very organized at the point and it is obvious that space was left to add more information. An interesting introduction id helpful in understanding what the entry is about. I think that it would be interesting to learn about what he did before he was a DJ and what he did to become a DJ. Also information between his start and his death is obviously needed. They did have good resources and cited them well. It is apparent that this will be a good final production entry. Psjenest (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 05:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]