Talk:Pantheon ad Lucem/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AstonishingTunesAdmirer (talk · contribs) 02:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey! I'm AstonishingTunesAdmirer and today I'm conducting this Good Article review.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

This is a great article, definitely learned something new after reading it. It is broad, neutral, illustrated, verifiable (except for a few minor details, see below), with all sources properly formatted. As for OR, I believe the note b should be fine per WP:PRIMARY policy. Statements of facts (Vogue messed up their list) can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source (through the provided video) without further, specialized knowledge (by just comparing them). A few other minor things:

• the collection included references to the 1930s fashion [...], included pussy bows... – sounds a bit repetitive. I was going to suggest replacing the second "included" with "such as", but it's already used further in the paragraph. How about the collection included references to the 1930s fashion that influenced his previous collection, Deliverance (Spring/Summer 2004): pussy bows, ...?
  • Typo for "including", now fixed
• McQueen later described his barefoot appearance as an indication of "how humbled I felt by... – I believe replacing "I" with "[he]" would make the sentence clearer.
  • I don't think so, it's already identified as a direct quote. If a reader can't follow that, I can't help them.

A few more suggestions from WP:MOS, for when you eventually decide to go to FAC:

• he said "If the TARDIS did exist, I'd be the first to buy one." – per MOS:QUOTEPUNCT, a colon is preferred before a quote if it forms a complete sentence.
• wrote "When it comes to taking creative risks, McQueen is a visionary." – same as above
  • Above 2 done
• In the last sentence of the Analysis section, starting with She wrote that the collection marked, since the quote is a fragment of the sentence, per MOS:LQ the full stop should be outside of the quotation marks.
  • I never get this right

Spot checks

• 9, 10: funnily enough, I wanted to check whether it's "the head designer" (seems like it's not), but realized that neither of the sources support October 2001, both sources (at least the editions I could find) just say that his contract was supposed to end in 2001. FWIW, October 2001 is confirmed by newspapers [1] [2] N
  • Head designer is a singular position, there's only one, and it absolutely was McQueen. October must have been lost in a split somewhere; I've added one of your newspaper sources.
• 11: confirms the sale of 51% of his company Y
• 15, 21: ref 15 contains the list of movies which inspired the collection, with Signs being in ref 21; Ref 15 also confirms the Middle Ages influences; 21 confirms his struggle with the floral prints and contains the "pivotal" quote Y
• 26: indeed compares it to the Apollo command module. However, is it Look 51? Ref 26 doesn't explicitly mention its number. The Vogue list says it's 51, but if the note b said that there's one missing after 50, shouldn't it be 52?  
  • Vogue is generally the only place that explicitly uses "Look X". Other souces will just describe the looks and let you figure it out; to simplify things for the reader I generally go with Vogue's numbers. I've added a footnote the first time looks are mentioned by number, saying that we're using the Vogue numbering regardless of it missing the one look, as it's more sensible to use their (lightly incorrect) numbers than it would be to try to force the reader to watch the video and count it out themselves.
  • As for the dress - yes, we know it's Vogue's Look 51, because Gleason describes it as worn by Adina Fohlin, and Adina Fohlin wears Look 51.
• 25: (switching order so I can make this more concise) the ref confirms that the "conceptual silhouette" foreshadowed the autumn/winter 2008–2009 collections; However, just like in ref 26, it doesn't explicitly list the numbers. Could we double-check it's 52–54?  
  • Yes. Knox has photos and the photos show those looks.
• 31: confirms that Joseph Bennett worked with him since No. 13, and did all the later shows, including that one Y
• 34: confirms the process behind the creation of the "Orchid" shoulderpiece Y
• 46, 47: confirm that he returned to Greek themes and Azzedine Alaïa's work in Neptune Y

Hello AstonishingTunesAdmirer, thank you for the review. All responses above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I went through the article one more time and couldn't find anything else, so I'm happy to promote it. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 22:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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.