Wikipedia:Peer review/Dixie (song)/archive1

Dixie (song)

I've been working on this article off an on, mainly as a sideline from my work at minstrel show and related subjects. It eventually took on a life of its own, and I think it's now pretty well fleshed out. However, I have a few concerns:

First and foremost, what needs to be improved to make this a Featured Article?
Does the "'Dixie' opposed" section read as too anti-"Dixie"? Or are the arguments that "It's heritage, get over it" and that most people are blissfully ignorant about the perceived problems enough for the pro-"Dixie" side?
Are the sound clips placed in their best locations? Would a soundclip from Elvis Presley's "An American Trilogy" add to the article and be legitimate fair use?
Can someone who knows a lot of music and music terminology take a look at the talk page and read the comments there? Should any of that gobbeldygook from Hans Nathan's book be included in the article?
Any other suggestions?

One note on size: The article is over the size limit, but this is due mainly to footnotes, images, and sound samples. Without these, it is 32 KB. Thanks! --BrianSmithson 14:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comments:

Shouldn't there be a song infobox included at the top?

You mean with information like chart position and B-side? :P :) I'm No Parking and I approved this message

There are quite a considerable amount of red links throughout this article.
The footnotes confuse me, they are very simple in their description (such as 'Nathan 362-3.')

Good work overall. — Wackymacs 21:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the infobox issue up at the Songs WikiProject; the current infobox there is only usable for modern music, since it gives information like "Recorded" and "Length" and "Label" that just doesn't apply to traditional music (or classical, for that matter).
I figured I'd work at the red links while the peer review went on.
The footnotes refer to the references. So "Nathan 362-3" means the information came from pp. 362-3 of the book by Hans Nathan.

Thanks for the comments! --BrianSmithson 23:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]