Talk:Charvet Place Vendôme/GA1

GA Review

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

On the whole, an interesting and well-made article, but I am sorry to say that I can't pass it at this time, mainly due to concerns about the prose and the "notes" section. My specific remarks are as follows:

Prose, spelling and grammar:

"Due to its unique longevity and customers list" - what is unique about those? And what does this mean? Every list of customers is unique, no? Also, "list of customers" would probably be better.
I do not understand the meaning of "Famous customers have qualified their patronage as a personal attribute". Can this be rewritten in simpler English?
The sentence "Being a customer of Charvet continued to be almost synonymous to belonging to this high society, for those who deem Charvet to be 'king of men's fashion'" is puzzling to me. Why the change of tense, and should that not be "the king"? What is the connection between belonging to high society and being deemed the king of fashion? Was it only for those who deemed Charvet to be the king that being its customer was synonymous to belonging?
The phrase "such as Alfonso XIII of Spain (warrant granted in 1913);" should be made more clear. Did Alfonso grant a warrant to Charvet?
In "The target of the company is to give its customers", the choice of word of "target" is inapt; "goal" or "aim" or would be better.
"Charvet ties, ranked as the best designer's ties in the USA ..." By whom and when? That's important in the text itself, I think, because there is probably no Official U.S. Designer Tie Ranking Board.
Chronological ordering is not always observed when it would make sense; e.g. in "Neckwear" we talk first about ties for the 2008 American presidential campaign and then about a tie invented in the 1950s.
In the same section, we have one rather long paragraph and two one-sentence paragraphs, which is jarring; paragraphs should be of about the same length where possible.
"Brand identity is a set of brand associations" - meaning what? Is this a general definition of the concept of brand identity (why here? and why not linked?) or do we talk about Charvet's identity?
During the review, I have found and corrected several spelling and other minor errors. I have probably missed several. Could a native speaker of English (which I am not) please copyread the article?

MOS:

Per MOS:INTRO, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points". But several parts of the lead do not seem to have counterparts elsewhere in the article, such as the "longevity" and "patronage" sentences mentioned above.
There is some jargon, such as "Topstitching and edgestitching" or "basted canvas" that is neither linked to nor explained.
I am uncomfortable with the extended "Notes" section, which is misused in part to bury trivia that should be either be made part of the article, or omitted entirely. Per Wikipedia:LAYOUT, such sections "present ... explanatory notes that would be awkward in the body text". That does not apply to some notes such as no. 31: "During the same campaign, the Republican party spent $150,000 on dressing Sarah Palin "for the part of vice-president", part of which was used on Charvet ties for her husband Todd." That is not explanatory text, but simply a continuation of the article text in the notes. However, it may be too trivial to be mentioned in the main article.

If the prose is improved and the "notes" section cut down to actual explanatory notes, I can see this passing as a good article in another review. Best, Sandstein 21:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]