Talk:Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection)

Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 20, 2024	Good article nominee	Listed
October 19, 2024	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 13, 2024.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that models in the runway show for Nihilism by Alexander McQueen were dressed in plastic, locusts, rust, and clay?

Current status: Featured article

Source dump

Drapers Record boring
Gale & Ebsco negative. Newspapers.com clippings clipped.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hey man im josh talk 17:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that models in the runway show for Nihilism by Alexander McQueen were dressed in plastic, locusts, rust, and clay? Source: Clay, locusts, & plastic: Gods and Kings p 110-111. Rust in Kate Bethune's Encyclopedia of Collections, no official online version, image available on request
- ALT1: ... that Alexander McQueen created a plastic dress covered in locusts for his Nihilism collection as a commentary on famine in Africa? Source: Gods and Kings p 111
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Crown Building (Manhattan)
- Comment:

Created by Premeditated Chaos (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 54 past nominations.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I like the first hook a lot, and it seems to check out (AGF On the rust part). Article is eligible, long enough, and in generally good shape. QPQ checks out. Seems good to go! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:22, 20 September 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 19:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 18:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dibs on this one too actually. I think I can knock the initial review on both of these out this weekend so you can get started upon your return. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion #1: Well written

Lede is high quality, don't see any problems here.
Background section also good.
Again, despite his hesitation, his friends persuaded him might be clearer as Despite his hesitation, his friends again persuaded him
- Yeah, swapped
Rest of Concept and collection and Runway show seems good.
Reception quite well written.
Since McQueen is British and this uses British English, we should probably avoid false titles like "British fashion designer Alexander McQueen" or "Fashion theorist Caroline Evans" in lieu of " The fashion theorist Caroline Evans" and "The British fashion designer Alexander McQueen".
- I've been consistently not doing the "the" since Widows; I find it inescapably clunky. It's not completely unacceptable in BrEng, just not the norm.

Criterion #2: Well-sourced

Sourcing looks good and consistent, SFNs correctly formatted. I'm a bit confused why Mora & Berry 2022 and Arnold 1999 aren't using SFNs though; you only have one cite for Homer (albeit used many times).
- Hm, yeah. My rule of thumb is books always get an sfn, journals get one if I'm reusing them. But I suppose that's not terribly intuitive to anyone not residing inside my brain. I'll fix.

Citations are out of order in several places.
- Should be fixed now

Spot check:

1a and 1b: Both check out.
10: Checks out.
15: Checks out.

It's accessible so I'll check all the Watt cites:

29: Yep, tho this is just on pg. 64, no need for the range. Might be good to mention the home was in Tooting just for some context.
- Both done
31: Yep.
33a, b, and c: Yep on all.
40: Yup.
45a & B: Yes.
49: Yes.
56: Yep.
57: Yep.
58: Yep.
63: Checks out.
64: Good quote, checks out.
65: Yep.

52 & 53: Love random cites like this. Checks out ofc.

60: Checks out.
67: Checks out as well.

I'm impressed; you've really polished this one off! No major source discrepancies.

Thanks! I'm a bit surprised, usually I fuck something up somewhere :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion #3: Broad

I can't find any areas where coverage is lacking. Coverage is just as broad as your other McQueen collections.

Criterion #4: Neutral

Yup. Good mix of critical feedback that follows guidelines on reception.

Criterion #5: Stable

Yep.

Criterion #6: Illustrated

Good images, properly licensed. They don't have alt-text, which isnt a requirement but you should still add it.

@Premeditated Chaos: Just a couple things to respond to! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Laura! Changes made per suggestions, alt text is alted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:20, 20 September 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.