Talk:Voss (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 21:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 18:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're on vacation atm, but dibs on this one so you can get started on it when you get back! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima, if you don't think you have time for a review in the next week, you might consider tagging this for deletion via G6 so that someone else can start the review. There's a backlog drive happening next month that this article will be eligible for, so there's a good chance it will be picked up quickly. -- asilvering (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: No, I will certainly have time to do this. I have been in touch with PMC about this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There we go! @Premeditated Chaos: looks like just one thing to correct. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Went ahead and fixed a bunch of citation orders.

Solid lede. Does "oriental" need to be capitalized and in quotations? I feel one or the other works here.
Background is good, though I feel you have gotten them down to a science at this point.
- I cheat by stealing from existing ones that are close to what I need ;)
You have two of the same cite (Davis 2001) in production details; intentional?
- I often use the same citation in successive sentences because I'm prone to moving stuff around, even after GA/FA, and it makes it less likely that I'll lose track of what content comes from where
Concept and collection also very very good.
Runway show is good too! (Wow, he invited his parents?)
- Yeah, it doesn't always get mentioned in sources but it seems like he invited them to all his shows. His mum always came, she was his biggest fan from day one. His dad was a little weird about it.
- "size of a size 16 "dress" I don't think those quotation marks are right. Also, I know it says "size of a size" in the source, but I have no idea what that means whatsoever and thought it was a typo for "wrong side of a size" at first lol.
  - Quotation marks fixed, that was my typo. I didn't even notice the size/size thing till now! I've corrected it, since I think it's pretty clear what she was saying, and we're allowed to fix typos for clarity.
Reception well-written. Again, you got this down to a science.
Analysis, now this is where it really shines. This is a fascinating quantity of sources here. I just feel that its a lottt of names. Is there any way we could be quoting individual authors less and summarize related interpretations? Sorta along the lines of WP:RECEPTION but, yknow, not actually reception.
- It is a lot of names, yeah. This one got a lot of fuss. I've cut where I could - Grimaldi Figueredo in particular was quite gnarly. At a certain point though, it's just impossible to condense this type of scholarly analysis any further without totally losing the plot. (There are already a few where I've condensed ideas right down to just this side of being incomprehensible).
Aftermath and legacy good.

Sources

Bibliography and source list is consistently formatted and well-laid out (I mean, I'd do columns for the bibliography but that's up to your preference ultimately). These, like all your McQueen works, are a good sampling of the best quality sources on the subject. I chose a random set of sources as of this revision.

3a, 4a, 6, 11, 13a, 42, 93, 159: Yep, no notes.

45a, 45b, 45c, 45d: All of these check out.

55 (Honigman 2021 pp 135, 138) Wasn't able to get these by searching for embroidery or embroidering (those and searches for Voss returned pages in the 120s) but assuming good faith.

Double checked this one. She doesn't mention Voss by name in the text here, but uses an image of the straitjacket dress and discusses "embroidered clothing" and "embroidery's legacy". Weird that "embroidery" didn't come back, maybe it's because of the possessive?

60a, 60b, 60c: I always love when the source is like, a brochure. This is reliable though, and informative; it all checks out.

This was such a great but terrifying find. The original link I had bookmarked didn't work when I came back to it (I originally found it during Widows, I think), and I had to go on a wild goose chase to get it back.

157: weird way to format this, but I guess it works?

I can't remember why I did it like this - maybe because the titles are the same and it felt like it could be confusing? Thanks, past PMC.

Broadness

For sure! It goes into intense detail, but this is warranted given the massive amount of coverage on this collection.

Neutrality

Seems not to give too much weight to particular opinions.

Stable

Yep.

Images

Good quality images for this one! Not a GA (or FA) criteria, but I'd recommend adding alt-text.

Alt text has been added. I also added a pair of NFCC images of the finale and the photo that inspired it, with alt text.

Generalissima, all notes have been responded to and changes made. Thank you so, so much for the review. I know this one was a brute with all the academic stuff so I can't thank you enough. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Looks good to go now :) Thank you as always for your good work on this subject! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.