Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/The KLF/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 07:14, 22 September 2009 [1].

The KLF edit

Review commentary edit

Toolbox
Notified: WikiProject Music, Kingboyk

I am nominating this featured article for review because... I think it is starting to fail 1C. There are fairly large stretches with only one or no references, and at least a couple {{fact}} tags are creeping in. All of the instances of unsourced-ness are spread out enough that I think there're enough cracks in the foundation to delist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article might not be quite up to standards, but it strikes me as pretty good on the first look. Were these issues brought up on the talk page first? Also, were the significant contributors notified? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There doesn't seem to be any significant contributor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • [2] – from the toolbox on the right side of this page. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, most of those guys haven't edited in a while. I did get to Kingboyk at least. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images lack alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was tempted to try and clean up the article, as I love their music, but I fear that a lot of the unreferenced stuff would require access to print media from back when the band was active, which I simply don't have. Also, a lot of the "themes" section seems like OR, or at least very difficult to find a reference for - the talking porpoise, for example. And blimey, there sure are a lot of images claimed as fair use. The shot of Bill Drummond at the BRITS, for example, is claimed as fair use because it illustrates the performance, yet all we see in the image is a guy in a leather jacket holding a mic, which doesn't add anything to the description in the prose........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 24 non-free files in one article? - only 21 articles in the whole of en.wiki have more than this. Clearly excessive and needs to be cut down harshly. Far too many album covers which fail WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS, especially as most of them are decorative. Black Kite 10:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is rarely a need for any album covers on artist pages; are the covers themselves of significance to this article? J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - the web citations are badly formatted, there are too many sound samples and some sections are written more as a series of comments rather than as paragraphs. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 19:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—There seems to be two major problems in the article. I think both are fixable:

  1. References: Many of the citation tags are for uncited chart positions, which should very easily fixed. Citing their themes etc. should be a greater challenge though (although I suspect that can be fixed by reverting those sections to the version that got through FAC). Also those links to article reprints on libraryofmu.org should be removed as they constitute copyright violation.
  2. Fair-use: None of the music samples have their sound described as of now, so I guess they can all be removed for now (note that I am not very familiar with the group's music at all). Then we can re-add samples one-by-one as required.

I'll try to get as much done over this week. indopug (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't forget about the alt text. To see what's missing, you can click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review article. Eubulides (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/The_KLF/archive1&oldid=1079643932"