Talk:Shag Times

Latest comment: 14 years ago by GaryColemanFan in topic GA Reassessment
Former good articleShag Times was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 12, 2006Good article nomineeListed
November 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu edit

I'm wondering if it would be better to bill this as an album by The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu in the infobox and intro, with a note in the text that side LP 2 was credited to The KLF? Discuss. :) --kingboyk 17:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Probably an excellent idea - all versions and variations of this album contain mainly JAMs material. And after all, The KLF's contributions are remixes of "other artist's" work. I was feeling that the intro was unwieldy.
I'm also not convinced that the Towards Trance stuff is sufficiently relevant. In the case for its inclusion, it indicates that Drummond and Cauty were embarking upon a new path; but on the other hand, it can be seen as another of their ideas that didn't reach fruition. What do you reckon? --Vinoir 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hadn't thought about it until you mentioned it but yes. "Indeed, there were originally two separate compilations planned: Shag Times and Towards Trance[1]; it is likely that The KLF's contributions to Shag Times were originally intended to form the Towards Trance album[2]." could be snipped in its entirety. I think beyond dedicated fans it might be a case of "who cares?". We'd leave the other stuff; we certainly do want to point out that (basically) "here is born The KLF". --kingboyk 18:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Zapping those lines would also mean saying farewell to the KLF FAQ as a source, which is a good thing. Wonderful resource, yes, valid encyclopedic resource - not really. --kingboyk 18:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Excellent! That's much better I reckon, a more suitably-sized article for this album. Good work. --Vinoir 20:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sleevenotes edit

(notes to self for formatting and inclusion later, from JAMS CD3:) All songs written by The Jams except Whitney (Jams, Rubican, Merrill, Isaac Hayes, Andrews, Burton, Westwood, Schifrin), Downtown (Jams/T. Hatch); Candyman (Jams/Hendrix/Wagner); Burn the Bastards (S. Stewart ???); Doctorin' (Jams/Chinn/Chapman/R Grainer/Glitter/M Leander). Production: JAMs. Engineer: Ian Richardson. Programmer: Nick Coler. Guest DJ: Cesare.

Burn The Bastards (The JAMS side, KLF 2): Dec 87. --kingboyk 08:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Question toward GA edit

  • Just a few questions ... there was no production, remixing or so done during that album's compilation. There was no studio time either.
  • Where did the compilation take place, where did the assembling was done.
Just answer beside each bullet point and if needed add material to the article, if not, it qualifies as GA and will be given GA once these questions are answered. Lincher 13:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Side one (The JAMs) is old material. Side two (The KLF) is old songs newly remixed. Unfortunately, published sources are extremely sparse on this album. I'm fortunate to have an original CD which I picked up on eBay, and the sleevenotes - aren't very detailed either. See next point:
  • Published sources don't answer that first q as far as I know, although we generally locate all KLF activities at Trancentral :) The sleevenotes say the new remixes are (p)(c) 1988, and give some personnel data but no venues. One could speculate from the personnel involved that they used the same studio in Dagenham that some other works were recorded at, but that would be mere speculation indeed.

In short, the only info missing that I have available is the name of the engineer, the programmer, and the year of the remixes. Will add this shortly. Please place on hold in the meantime. Thank you! --kingboyk 13:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

GA passed edit

1. Well written? Pass
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass

Thanks for having taken the time to answer the questions and to have added some information to the article. It is truly nice to see such articles being succinct, well-written and broad. Lincher 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Much appreciated. --kingboyk 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment edit

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Shag Times/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is undergoing a Good Article Reassessment as part of the Good Article sweeps. Looking through the article, I had a few concerns:

  1. There is no information about sales figures or chart performance (if any).
  2. There is no list of Personnel, which members of the Album project have informed me are essential for GA class.
  3. There seems to be a lot of assumed knowledge. I can follow the JAMs to KLF transition, but should I know who The Timelords and Disco 2000 are?
  4. According to the infobox, it seems to be released by KLF Communications. Could something about this apparently newly created label be included in the "Context" section?
  5. The "Reviews" section seems really short. Did only two reviewers comment on it?
  6. In the Q Magazine review, it says that the album helped reopen a debate about creative ownership, but this article doesn't mention anything about that.
  7. The non free-use rationale template should be used for the image of the album cover.
  8. Stating in the footnotes that Longmire's work is "the authoritative KLF discography on the internet" seems like point of view.

I will place this reassessment on hold for one week to allow for these concerns to be addressed. If this can be completed within seven days, I will continue with an examination of the prose. If not, the article will be delisted. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No progress has been made, so I am delisting this article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply