Talk:Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1

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.

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

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.