Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/K Foundation/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:39, 21 January 2008.

[edit] K Foundation

Check external links

This is a companion piece to The KLF, which is already Featured. It was written by the same team and to the same standard as that article, and has been in an arguably FAC ready state for quite some time. I am nominating the article as I believe that it meets all of the FAC criteria and is amongst Wikipedia's best work.

The article is a current Good Article and has undergone a peer review.

One issue from the peer review which went unresolved until today was the length of the Context section, with one reviewer feeling it was too long. I have therefore truncated the section; in the current version we are introduced to Messrs Drummond & Cauty as they enter the music business, we're with them as they form a partnership in 1987, and then we skip to 1992 when their most successful enterprise - The KLF - comes to an end. We are then able to proceed to the formation of K Foundation. I would be grateful if reviewers would also look at the previous revision (diff) just in case I've been a bit too eager with the cutting knife.

I look forward to receiving your comments. --kingboyk (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article uses certain POV adjectives;

1. "In the early 1980s, British musician and artist Jimmy Cauty was the guitarist in an underachieving pop/rock band, Brilliant.[1]" - According to whom was this band "underachieving"? Which reputable critic felt that this band should've achieved more than it did? Whether a band achieves or underachieves is relative to how an individual person measures achievement.
2. "Within five years, however, the duo - now calling themselves The KLF - and had become one of Britain's biggest bands." - Who feels they became "one of Britain's biggest bands"? This is an opinion, so therefore needs attribution.
3. "The first manifestation of the mysterious K Foundation was a series of adverts in UK national newspapers in 1993." - "Mysterious"? Who felt that the K Foundation was mysterious?

There's one or two other instances, but I'll highlight them once the above has been addressed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Quick replies now as it's late and I'm tired.

1. Sorry, missed that one, will answer later.--kingboyk (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
2. That, of course, was a self-evident statement in the pre-truncated version (hard link above) as it followed a block of well-referenced text explaining their rise to (somewhere near) the top. As it now stands, it needs some sort of citation or modification - good find! (There's nothing wrong with being forceful BTW, that doesn't make it my "point of view"; it's a true statement and I can back it up with sources :))

   I've now reworded the offending sentence and introduced a direct quotation:

   By 1991, the duo—now calling themselves The KLF—had become the best-selling singles band in the world and, according to the All Music Guide, were "on the verge of becoming superstars".[10] Instead, in May 1992 they machine-gunned a music industry audience at the BRIT Awards (albeit with blanks) and quit the music business.[11]

   If you don't like that (or the old version with a longer KLF history) I could remove "according to the AMG", and add a further quotation from Vox which is currently in footnote 11, that they were "perched on the peak of greater-than-ever success". Really, however, I think it's not at all controversial or opinionated to suggest that The KLF were big in 1991/early 1992. --kingboyk (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Not sure about that, will look into it further tommorow. I seem to recall there being debate initially about "who the hell are the K Foundation". If there identity was a mystery they were mysterious. --kingboyk (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A quotation in the very next sentence sets the scene actually: "people started whispering. The cultish rhetoric, the unfathomable "Divide and Kreate" slogans, the K symbols, all suggested that the kings of cultural anarchy were back." It wasn't known who the KF were when they first appeared, but people were quickly guessing Drummond/Cauty. Now, that said, I've reviewed the section and feel the word "mysterious" is somewhat superflous anyway. So, that's been removed; will look at #s 1 and 2 tommorow. Bring it on with the others you mentioned please, cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, item 1 is backed up by a citation; the cited article says "Later, as an A&R man, he worked with Youth's wretched Brilliant, a mid-'80s group whose lasting cultural significance amounts to its inclusion of ex-Zodiac Mindwarp keyboardist/guitarist Jimmy Cauty". I can add other citations on the same thing if need be (see Brilliant (band) but this isn't an article on Brilliant :)) Now, we could have written something like "unsuccessful", or we could be totally bland and just say "he was a member of Brilliant".

I think it's fine as it is, so if you disagree please let me know what you want me to do to change it. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Later, as an A&R man, he worked with Youth's wretched Brilliant, a mid-'80s group whose lasting cultural significance amounts to its inclusion of ex-Zodiac Mindwarp keyboardist/guitarist Jimmy Cauty." - This needs attribution, since not everyone agrees the band had a "lasting cultural significance". It's not fact, but an opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • ? That's direct from source man. It's not even in the Wikipedia article. Are we getting our wires crossed here? --kingboyk (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We are getting our wires crossed indeed, because you need to say who believes that. For example, if Critic Y of Z magazine says they had "lasting cultural significance", then you need to say that Critic Y believes that. Just because Critic Y said it, that doesn't make it fact. It merely makes it Critic Y's opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but I don't quote them. How about I just delete that part and introduce us to Cauty and Drummond around 1991? Also, what were the other issues you have with the article, if any? Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another option, instead of worrying about whether Brilliant were "underachieving" or not: I could jump straight to, say, 1991, and skip all previous context? All we really need to know before we get to discussing the K Foundation is what the guys were doing in the previous years and how it came to be that they had a million quid to (literally) burn on an art foundation. Thoughts? --kingboyk (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.