Talk:Whitney Joins the JAMs

Next steps

I think I've done all I can to this article now. Can you make any recommendations for change/improvement? Should we submit it for GA yet?

Now the sample's uploaded, I'm ready to pack this one off to GA camp if you are. --Vinoir 22:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder, if you have the "Whitney" video, is it possible for you to capture an image from it for the ==Origins== section? That would be awesome if so. It's looking like I'll be able to upload a sample of Whitney. --Vinoir 12:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have that video, and I doubt if I've ever even seen it. (I didn't hear of The KLF until the 3am/IGUN era). --kingboyk 10:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No sign of it accessible anywhere on the web either, so far as I can see. Oh well. If you can think of a relevant image to add, please do. In other news, I found a relevant "Magnificent" quote in 45, so I've put that in. --Vinoir 01:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, nice one. How annoying we could have had a new JAMs track, if only the fat dancer wasn't going on holiday! :P --kingboyk 09:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

GA nom

I think this article is pretty much complete now. There's no edit warring on any of our articles, and given the current long delay in the GA system it will probably be a while before it gets a review, so stability won't be an issue. Therefore, I see no reason not to nom it now, given the aforementioned backlog. Revert if you think it's premature. --kingboyk 12:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good good, I think it stands a healthy chance. --Vinoir 14:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has passed

Congratulations! The Good article nomination for Whitney Joins the JAMs has passed. Many thanks to all who were involved in the creation of this article. My only complaint is that the first sentence of the origins section is rather awkwardly phrased ("Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty formed The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu (The JAMs) early in 1987, busily producing music made from plagiarised samples of popular music, grafted together and juxtaposed to form new songs, with beatbox rhythms and Drummond's often political raps."). You might want to split that up. --SomeStranger^(t|c) 11:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time reviewing the article and for your suggestion. I'll add it to the todo list and we'll get it fixed. --kingboyk 11:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the review. Your suggestion has been acted upon. Does the new version meet with your approval, kingboyk? --Vinoir 16:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I rather liked the word "busily", but the new wording reads well so it's no loss! :) --kingboyk 17:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A review as promised

Hiya KLFers,

kingboy asked me to take a look at the KLF articles and pick one that could be a potential FAC candidate and then post some constructive feedback on where I think the article needs to go next... so here I go, in no particular order.

• Wording: I see that someone else wasn't too happy with some of the wording, 'in which - thanks to studio technology - she "joins The JAMs"' - maybe we could change that to something like "in which, as the song's name suggests, her voice is fused with The JAM's music." - I know that wasn't in essence any better than the original, but I still don't like that "-thanks to studio...".
• Wording: "a band which busily produced music made from plagiarised samples of popular music" - maybe "busily" could be "prolifically"
• Sourcing: Must be many a source (web or otherwise) for the ABBA copyright case, would be good to get one in.
• Themes: Much of the content under the "Themes" heading does not actually seem to be dealing with the themes of the song, but rather the success that the song brought. I'd suggest the first sentence of that paragraph is refiled under "Composition" and then the section renamed to something more applicable - unless of course you wanted to do more lyrical analysis on the track to expand the themes section.
• Images: Could any more images of the single (sleeve notes for example) be obtained?
• Info on the version: 33 or 45 RPM? Anything on availability of copies after the destruction of 1987?

That's all I've come up with so far.... hope it helps. Martin Hinks 10:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

• I thought the "busily" phrase had been dealt with... I'll have to trawl through the history to see what happened!
• I think saying "she "joined" The JAMs" through the use of technology is essential to the spirit of the piece. Whitney joined The JAMs - just without ever knowing of it or consenting to it :) Will have a look at that though. Ditto Themes.
• Yes, if you think the ABBA case needs a source I can of course put one in.
• Images. We're restricted by Wiki policies of course. For an image to be used under "fair use" it has to be very important to the article, and the only such image I know of is the sleeve. (As for sleevenotes: there weren't any. This came in a generic KLF Comms sleeve.) I did think about trying to source a picture of Whitney from that era - which would have to be a free image - but decided it would be adding a picture for the sake of it. I think we'll have to make do with what we have.
• RPM?! Trainspotter!!! :P I'll get that info for ya. This record came after 1987 but was only pressed in small quantities. I'll check we make that clear.
• My own "criticism": we don't have enough reviews, but it's probable it just didn't get much media attention. Will double check on this.

Thanks very much for a detailed review. I think 1987 is the probable next FAC target so if you fancy doing the same for that article some time it would be appreciated. --kingboyk 12:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again,

Better check the situation on sleeve notes because the article states "and (according to sleevenotes) Westworld." implying that they do exist :p

I only mentioned RPM because I guess a FAC should have pretty much everything that it's possible to know about a subject and as this is a fairly narrow field I think that's the kind of detail that is needed.

I guess a link to the 1987 album with sourced ABBA comments there will do :)

I agree also that there is no point just bunging images in, but again, this depends on whether the sleeve notes exist.

I'll take a look at 1987 in a bit :)

Martin Hinks 12:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Perhaps he meant the sleevenotes to Shag Times? I have both records, the easiest way is to dig em out to check. Good catch!

Ah, yes, the one image we want is a screencap from the video. Unfortunately neither Vinoir or I have that particular film, so if anybody could give me a copy I will be 3am eternally grateful ;) (ditto "Waiting", the Omnibus docu, the million quid film, and the Chipping Norton rave!) --kingboyk 12:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Worklist

• "Thanks to studio technology she "joins The JAMs". I like this. I want to keep the 'she "joins The JAMs" bit', but have no attachment to "thanks to..." Any more suggestions?
• "Busily produced". Gone. Replacement may need tweaking.
• ABBA: Cited.
• Images: Screencap wanted but not available. Very rare video.
• Themes/Composition: TODO
• Reviews: I've bled The Library of Mu and Google dry, and not found anything else other than AMG. Proquest would be no use here I'm pretty sure.
• Sleevenotes: There weren't any.
• About the vinyl. Beefed up. No source I found mentioned the RPM and I think it's trainspotter level info anyway. Overruled. :)

--kingboyk 13:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Composition

The "Composition" section makes critical comments upon how the song sounds, with words like "unrhythmic" and so on. To reach FA status, I feel this section would need citations. LuciferMorgan 13:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, that needs looking at. I know that now from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?). Vinoir was/is excellent at writing these sections but he didn't always cite his sources (or just wrote what he heard) :) It'll go onto the todo list.

I've reformatted the todo section at WP:KLF to provide something of a roadmap (which articles might be FAC contenders soon, which haven't a hope in hell, etc.) Have you seen it? Unfortunately I'm really lacking in sources for some of them, not so much the early obscure singles where sources are to be expected to be in short supply, but for The White Room and associated singles in particular. Still, "we" (I?) have plenty to work on.

Anyrode, thanks for the tip, if you're gonna work your way through contenders could you put any actionable points onto each article's todo list also please? It'll just save me having to copy what you wrote, and the todo lists get transcluded onto WP:KLF. --kingboyk 13:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it ready for FAC? Answer - 99%ish

From User talk:LuciferMorgan. --kingboyk 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to take another look at the WP:KLF inventory please, Mr Morgan? I was thinking that as the Project has several articles which are damn near ready for FAC already, we might get one or two nominated to help myself and especially User:Vinoir back into the swing of things.

To my eye, Whitney Joins The JAMs looks particularly promising as a potential FAC. If you could see what you think and expand upon your previous comments it might be really helpful. Also, if you think we have a better article it would be nice to know about that too.

Cheers. --kingboyk 00:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take another look. I've indeed noticed the Project has several articles ready for FAC already, and it'd odd that as you and Vinoir wish to get back in the swing of things I'm rather busy - when that happens it's article improvement by me that loses out, though I still respond to queries etc.

Whitney Joins The JAMs is indeed ready for FAC.

1. Some moany reviewers may ask you to review the citation templates, though whether you wish to act upon them is up to you. Personally, it isn't really much of a problem. I also noticed with articles like NME, just the end of the quote is then cited. Some reviewers may wish for each quoted sentence to be cited given they're quotes.
2. Review section - nothing wrong with what's in it so far, though I would encourage a good scrummage for any other critical reviews. FA songs tend to usually have more reviews at hand, and as there's only two used some may cry POV.
3. I'm not an expert on lead sections, though I've noticed in my article improvements I tend to forget the lead section. If the lead section isn't adequate, as you know FAC reviewers pick up on these things.
4. "Composition" section - this is, besides the reviews, my main problem with the article. It has no citations, so comes across as Wikipedia's own description of the song - someone will scream WP:OR likely, and object. My recommendation, which you're free to call overkill, is to citate every sentence - the descriptions came from somewhere so likely can be cited. In FAC, this and reviews will likely be the main
5. KLF Communications should be already FL, and I put my middle fingers in the air to the objectors - makes me sick that articles not even half as good are FL. I'd find out sometime if it could make FL without the image moaning from last time. "The Magnificent" needs a little work but could be GA easily - I think it's a B really, and more deserving of that status than say "Who Killed the JAMs?" and a few others that've been rated B. I know FA is more prestigious etc., but if the sources are there this one has partially untapped potential - so run with it sometime.

I hope my advice has been helpful, though I doubt it since I'm not much of an expert. My advice is to open a quick peer review and then request the comments of Ceoil, WesleyDodds, ShadowHalo, Seegoon and don't forget my partner in Slayer crime (M3tal H3ad). May be worth trying Sandy too possibly. If that lot can't find anything to criticise, then you should be given the star right now lol - they know their Wikipedia better than me and all have their own expertise in one way or another. If you dislike some comments, you could always ignore them then. Good luck Mr. KLF :) LuciferMorgan 09:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking sod it, it may as well go on soon as the K Foundation FAC isn't moving at all right now...

The only other possibles are the K Foundation articles; beyond that I'd have to work out where I'd got to with my sources and try to write great articles without Vinoir's help. Not sure it's going to happen, I think it's a wave that has crashed onto the beach... The best I can do for now is patch up what we've got and take those articles as far as I can. --kingboyk (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

1. If they insist the templates be used, I can begrudgingly do it. It's not been a problem before, however. I don't think each sentence needs a citation provided it's clear which info or quote has come from where. I'm sure any specific issues along those lines would get flagged soon enough and are easy to fix.
2. I don't believe there are any more. There probably are 1 or 2 somewhere, but not on the web. Not from my latest search anyway.
3. Another fair point but this lead looks fine to me given that it's a short article. I think it's an adequate summary.
4. A problem if they insist on it being sourced, hence my talk page message to you today. If that section isn't ok we're in trouble; I trust that as it's merely descriptive it would pass scrutiny but I really don't know.

Thanks again mate. --kingboyk (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)