Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/K Foundation

K Foundation

At WP:KLF, we've been out of action for a little while and have got a bit rusty. I would like to request a peer review on this GA-Class article, 1) to help us get back into the swing of things, 2) to prepare the article for FAC. I believe it's 90% there, but would like a little guidance please. Getting this Featured would be quite exciting, as it would be the third creative partnership involving Jimmy Cauty to become Featured (the others are The KLF and The Orb). --kingboyk 17:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the people who've taken the trouble to review so far; I will respond over the weekend. Cheers. --kingboyk 14:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than never, I'm here now. Got rather distracted by other on-wiki events. Apologies for that. --kingboyk 18:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WesleyDodds

While it's well-written and extensively referenced, I do think a lot of the background material in the "context" section is unnecessary. For all intents and purposes, the important part of the section starts halfway through ("The KLF had become one of Britain's biggest bands . . .)" I suggest condensing the first few paragraphs and adding some "See also"/"main article" templates. Also, possibly group the adverts, Turner Prize, Money, and money-burning sections under a larger heading, like "Stunts" or something else that would be appropriate. These are preliminary comments, so I'll try to get back as soon as possible with more. WesleyDodds 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In past FACs we were told that articles should stand alone, and include context and background. However, I think you might be right - perhaps we don't need to start in 1987, when Drummond and Cauty began their partnership; perhaps we could indeed start in 1992, when they retired the KLF name. I'll put this on the talk page/todo list for further discussion/action.

I don't like the sound of "stunts". We could perhaps come up with a more objective term like "Projects", but you haven't yet convinced me the current sectioning scheme is "bad" :)

Thank you again for your comments, any further comments are welcome. --kingboyk 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it occured to me a few days after my comment that "Projects" is probably the best header. WesleyDodds 10:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

"In 1992 they machine-gunned a music industry audience at the 1992 BRIT Awards (albeit with blanks)". I did not fully understand what happened here.
- They appeared live on stage at the 1992 BRIT Awards, and at the end of the performance fired a machine gun into the crowd. It's explained in more detail at The KLF#Retirement. Maybe if we start our context section in 1992 (or 1991) we can expand on that a little; if not, can you help me make it clearer now that you know what happened? --kingboyk 19:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK! I think it is clear!--Yannismarou 18:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"it was all ploughed back into their extravagant productions." Their productions as KLF or KF? You mean their music productions as KLF? And what does "extravagant" mean here exactly? Were they spending too much money for their productions? Why? What was the purpose of these "extravagant" productions?
"this money-destroying machine". I would not repeat this characterization of the previous quote. I think the point was made clear.
What I also do not understand is what was the purpose of these "K Foundation adverts". Was there any? They were just for fun? It is the Situationist thing you mention in the lead, and which might be interesting to be a bit further explained?
"The 1994 K Foundation award was an award given by the K Foundation to the "worst artist of the year"." Again did they want to pass a message? Just to subvert the Turner Prize? Or I just shouldn't look for an explanation!
"these announced the "amending of art history".[33] During the evening, Rachel Whiteread was announced as the winner". Maybe the prose could be a bit better here.
"On the 23 August 1994, in a boathouse on the Scottish island of Jura, Drummond and Cauty incinerated £1,000,000 in cash." No review comment here! I just decided to write it down, in order to try to realize what they actually did!!
"Reid admitted to first feeling shock and guilt about the burning, which quickly turned to boredom." I think you should cite here.
"Drummond and Cauty quickly became bored of questions about their burning of one million pounds.[citation needed]" You should fix the tag here, adding the requested citation.
"Drummond and Cauty would next work together in 1997, when they attempted to "Fuck the Millennium" as 2K (music) and K2 Plant Hire (conceptual art)." Stubby paragraph and I don't see any correlation with K Foundation. You want to tell us what they did next? Then create a better context.

This must be the weirdest article I ever read in Wikipedia! This does not mean that it is not nice. It is; as a matter of fact, because it is weird, it becomes very attractive. When I started reading the article, I got the impression that I am stupid, I forgot my English, and I fail to understand what the hell is going on here! But this is just the first impression. Then, you start to understand better the "K Foundation's world". Could we have a more "gentle" entrance to this world for the ignorant reader? I cannot explain better my suggestion here, maybe iinfluenced by the way K Foundation worked (!), but this is the first thing I thought after I read the article. Maybe a more explanatory prose (at least at certain selected points and in the lead) would be helpful. In any case, a very intriguing article!--Yannismarou 13:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]