Talk:What Time Is Love?/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

Commencing GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerns

 * Ref 24 is a dead link and needs to be fixed. Currently, it redirects to a general page, not the entry of the track on the German charts.


 * "The cumulative popularity of KLF 004T in continental European clubs prompted The KLF to release a compilation album of selected cover versions and sound-alikes, entitled The "What Time Is Love?" Story." - A date for the relase would provide some contextual information here.


 * "The KLF co-founders Jimmy Cauty and Bill Drummond began releasing music in March 1987, under the pseudonym The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu (The JAMs), named after a cultish organisation from The Illuminatus! Trilogy novels." - unreferenced claim.


 * "Initially hip hop-oriented, The JAMs' sound soon inclined towards house music." - unreferenced statement.


 * "In common with the singles "3 a.m. Eternal", "Last Train to Trancentral" and "Justified and Ancient", "What Time Is Love?" evolved through substantial reworkings, each new version taking elements of its predecessors and placing them in the context of a different musical genre." - unreferenced claim.


 * "shifting The KLF's sound from acid house through pop-house into heavy rock-oriented electronica." - unreferenced assertion.


 * "In 1997, the original "What Time Is Love?" was covered by the Williams Fairey Band, a brass band which under the stewardship of British artist Jeremy Deller pioneered the Acid Brass concept." - this definately needs references.


 * "...since the trance music genre was at this time unestablished." - unreferenced statement of fact. Could easily be questioned.


 * "What Time Is Love?'s European acclaim also contributed towards The KLF's change of musical direction following their abortive film project, The White Room." - again, no reference to substantiate the claim that this was a change in musical direction.


 * There are various other statements and sentences that need citations as supporting evidence for their assertions.


 * Although the article does not overtly violate NPOV guidelines, it is skating on thin ice with some of the descriptions of the musical quality/tones of the track.

There are alot of issues that need to be addressed with this article. It clearly no longer meets GA standards. ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  15:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment review
To uphold the quality of 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 October 2009; 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 often stilted, and in parts reads like a list - there is a lack of integration of content material into the format suitable for a GA article. Additionally, there is a lot of assumed knowledge underlying manner comments and statements made in the article.
 * b (MoS):
 * Although not glaring problems, there is some overlinking in the article which should be corrected per WP:OVERLINK.
 * 1) 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):
 * No evidence of OR.
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.
 * b (focused):
 * Remains focused. No digressions.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * No edit wars etc.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Keep/Delist: DELIST ✽  Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  15:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Keep/Delist: DELIST ✽  Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  15:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep/Delist: DELIST ✽  Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  15:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)