Talk:Illusion of Kate Moss/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: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 03:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• I must disclaim before starting my review that beyond two and a half seasons of Project Runway my knowledge of fashion is limited, but hopefully I can give this article a fair review and I am excited to learn! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 03:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Okay, I believe that is all. This was actually really fascinating; thanks for writing it! I will put it on hold for a week but I doubt we will need that much time seeing as this should be a quick fix. Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns fully so that I can know when to respond (I apologise in advance if it takes me a while). If you wish to respectfully disagree with any of my points please do so—I reckon we can work it out. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 04:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• All my concerns have been addressed and I am happy to pass this for GA status now! Great work on the massive new additions, and thanks for the fast responses and congrats on another fantastic article, 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 06:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio check

• Earwig says good to go. The only concern it gives me are with quotations that are properly attributed and usable per WP:COPYQUOTE.

Files

All images are relevant to the article and copyright-free:

• File:Illusion of Kate Moss from Widows of Culloden.gif (I think I see the text moving): good, valid fair use rationale;
• File:KateMoss.jpg: good, CC-BY-SA 2.0 on commons;
• File:Peppers Ghost.jpg: good, public domain;
• File:Loie Fuller.jpg: good, public domain.

Prose

• Should catwalk be wikilinked or is this not common practice for fashion-related articles?

• No idea about common practice lol but as "catwalk" redirects to "fashion show" I've linked "runway show" instead

• "By 2006, she had not walked in a fashion show in years." Do we know an exact date or year when she last walked?

• I could probably find one but it would take some digging and isn't (imo) super germane to the illusion

• Agreed!

• "and producers Gainsbury & Whiting." I presume this to be the name of a fashion duo, but the previous sentence mentions a post-production company and I was confused for a moment that Gainsbury & Whiting was the name of a production company. Also, the way it is phrased (despite the ampersand) kind of makes it look like it says Gainsbury and Whiting. Perhaps replace "producers" with "producing duo" or something similar?

• It's a production duo, yes. I've tweaked it to say that, but left them last in line as they were sort of the least involved

• "so the team ensured that was carried out for the V&A's version of the exhibit." This reads awkwardly to me, maybe an it is missing?

• reworded

• "transformed into a form of virtual reality" recommend linking virtual reality.

• done

• "be confined to an attic or asylum, but again McQueen subverts the expectation by" Is again necessary here?
• "she called the dresses persuasive in the way" Pretty sure dresses should not be plural here?

• Both this wording and the above "again" were relics from when this was part of The Widows of Culloden, now fixed

References

The references are good and support the article's content. Ref 52 (a YouTube video) is usable per the uploader being an RS source. Note: some of the refs had inconsistent date formats compared to the rest of the citations in the article so I added {{use dmy dates}} (which appears to be the preferred format) to the article to fix this.

• Ref 36 is missing a date.

• Fixed

• I notice that some books have full dates while others only have years; is there a reason for this otherwise I would recommend having these be consistent.

• No reason, it's just what came up when I threw the ISBN in. Since some precise dates aren't known, I'll trim to years.

I also noticed some duplicate refs here so I've fixed those, hopefully.

Other

• Recommend adding a short description.

• Done

All done, and hopefully before you've logged off for the day :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

As a side note (sorry) I copied some content in from the main Widows article just now and rejiggered the analysis section (sorry). But I think it ties itself together more neatly now, so that's a plus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Nice work! I read through your new additions and could not find anything of concern. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 06:19, 7 December 2022 (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.