Talk:Jamiroquai/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 06:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Review

I will review this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for taking the time. :) 100cellsman (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have reviewed images and they seem to be correctly licensed. I am not well-versed in understanding fair use - so there may be some reason to challenge the fair use rationale of the logo. This should be checked at any subsequent reviews.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have to say that on reading the article there are parts I don't like: The writing style strikes me as very dense and telegraphic, and written in the style of a music magazine rather than an encyclopedic article. It is written almost as a list with the entire prose content being very short paragraphs listing their record releases. I miss biographical information about the members (I don't really get a feeling of who they are and how the group dynamics are like), and I also feel I lack also much about the development of their musical style, the views they express in their lyrics, the style and contents of their videos, things they may themselves have expressed about their music in interviews etc. Basically I think the article comes across as minimalistic both in its contents and its writing style. Do you think it is possible to expand a little on some of those things - given the sources available?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I actually once added an artistry section for them. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamiroquai&oldid=830201155) I felt like it stripped the history section too much and the hat mention was kinda dubious. I can bring that back if possible though.100cellsman (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I think something like that would be helpful, because it is difficult to extract that type of information from the very densely written history section.The hat thing seems notable to me, also the Native American complaint - especially given that name of the group incorporates part of the name of a native people (Iroquois is not a tribe btw. but a confederacy of six native nations). You might also mention why they chose to include that in the name (apparently something about being inspired by their religious views).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I unfortunately need to head off to bed now as it is quite late in my time zone. I'll work on that at soon though.100cellsman (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not in a hurry, so work on it when ever you can. Good night.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

So I added the artistry section again. The history section is kind of unchanged because I don't know how I feel about removing their musical directions during certain periods.100cellsman (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't really work to have material repeated between sections though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I stripped down the history section some more.100cellsman (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh and I added some more info about their live sound, hat and their name in the artistry section.100cellsman (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I also have a question, what do you think if I changed the infobox pic back to this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jamiroquai_Automaton_Performance_2017_(cropped).jpg I changed it since I thought them looking to the right was kinda strange. I'm going for photos that best illustrate them as a group and not Jay Kay looking like a solo act.100cellsman (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that photo is fine, and I also do like the added artistry section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know your thoughts on the article's writing so far. Is there anything else I should improve on?100cellsman (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I still can't say I like the writing style, it is much to journalistic for my taste. But I wouldn't fail the article on that account. I think it falls within the criteria.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I found one instance in which a direct quote from the source was not correctly formatted as a quote - I fixed it by moving the quotation marks to include the entire sentence. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Checklist

1. Well written:
   1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
   2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
   3. it contains no original research; and
   4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.