Talk:Whitney Joins the JAMs/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Commencing GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 14:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Issues

• "Early in 1987, Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty formed The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu (The JAMs), grafting plagiarised samples from the history of popular music with beatbox rhythms and Drummond's often political raps." - A reference or citation is needed to substantiate the claim in the second clause of this sentence.

• "The lyrical theme of the piece is the satirical false premise that Whitney Houston had been begged and persuaded to collaborate with The JAMs; Drummond's jubilant lyrics suggest that extensive sampling of Houston's 1987 # 1 single "I Wanna Dance with Somebody (Who Loves Me)" is evidence of Whitney's dedication to the project." - Whilst this may be a correct interpretation of the lyrical conceit, it requires supporting evidence. Either a reference detailing this, or perhaps present remarks from the lyrics of the song itself as substantiation.

• "The 7-minute song is progressive, funky house, and an early example of a mash-up." - no reference.

• "Drummond says "'Mission impossible' we were told, she'll never join The JAMs", a point answered by power chords sampled from Whitney's "I Wanna Dance with Somebody". Drummond then begs and pleads to Whitney for around ninety seconds before the first strains of her voice can be heard. Drummond sounds ecstatic, proclaiming "Whitney Houston joins The JAMs!" and "I'm yours!"." - a link to the lyrics that include the above should be included here.

• "The song's self-referential nature—in this case concerning its own production—is also typical of much of the duo's output." - requires reference or else could be considered original research or opinion.

• "Davis' offer reflected the upturn in Drummond and Cauty's fortunes brought about by their decision to produce commercial music as The Timelords and The KLF." - reference needed.

• Large parts of the "Theme" subsection seem to be irrelevant to the article subject matter.

• The lead is too short and should include some information about the reception and composition.

There are quiet a few issues facing the article. It clearly no longer meets the GA criteria. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 18:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassesment

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 14, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. This action has been taken immediately because 1)there has been no content improvements made to this article since November 2008; 2)the wikiproject connected to this article is no longer active. Therefore, there is little likelihood that the serious problems afflicting this article will be addressed within a 7 day period. The article has failed GA criteria per the review set out below:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • The prose is of an adequate quality. However, the lead and reviews sections are too short.

   b (MoS):

   • Although not glaring problems, there is some overlinking in the article which should be corrected per WP:OVERLINK.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • The article is not well referenced. Many statements and comments are made that provide no supporting material or sources.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • The references that are made, however, are mostly accurate and to suitable sources. Citations are presented in the perper format.

   c (OR):

   • There is a question of original research in this article, given that some statements and claims have no sources.

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • The composition and release history is well developed, but the reviews sections seems to be too short and could do with developing.

   b (focused):

   • The final subsection (Themes) seems rather superfluous to the article subject matter.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • There are some issues with weasel words. The problem of NPOV is confounded by the lack of referencing to statements and some of the more subjective comments.

5. It is stable:

   • No edit wars etc.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Images are properly tagged and justified.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Images are accompanied by contextual captions.

7. Overall:

   Keep/Delist: DELIST ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 18:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)