Wikipedia:Peer review/Gnawa/archive1

It seems to be a complete article about gnawa music. Needs some help on reviewing. Cheers Svest 08:04, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[I changed the title of the PR request to reflect the actual title of the article — mark ✎ 10:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ][reply]

Expand the intro a little so it summarises the article and megre those single sentence paragraps into longer paragraphs. It'd be great if you could get a fairuse short sample (I think 30 seconds is the max length) so that people could hear what the music is like. The list of musicians at the end is unattrcative, mabye it should be stuck on a seperate page or made into a table. A section on the influence of Gwana on other forms of music would be good too. --nixie 23:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two short points to start with:

Try to lose the bolded words; Wikipedia practice is to use italic text when introducing foreign terms.
The article needs references, cf. Cite your sources and Verifiability.

A very interesting article. I too have two points with which to start:

The very first sentence is confusing. Is Gnawa the name of a people (that is, an ethic group) or a discipline. Are all Gnawas musicians? Are all musicians in this discipline of the same ethnic group? I know that it is explained later in the lead. Start with the broadest definition.--Theo (Talk) 17:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right in that the sentence is confusing. In fact, Gnawa is both a small ethnic group and a spiritual music discipline. In order to be more explicative, I am thinking about dividing the article into two (Gnawa people and Gnawa music). Svest 00:12, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  - Good plan. --Theo (Talk) 07:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence of ==History==: What is "Old Sudan"?--Theo (Talk) 17:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Old Sudan is Sudan (region). It's a historical large sub-saharan region from the Atlantic to nowadays Sudan, conquered by North African Arabs at medieval times. Svest 00:12, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  - Because "Old Sudan" is not widely used in this sense, I suggest that you explain it in the article with the sentence that you use here. --Theo (Talk) 07:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree. I think it´s ok now. Cheers --