Talk:Oyster dress/GA1

GA Review

Passed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:13, 24 August 2023 (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

Reviewer: Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs) 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy there! I'll be taking up this review :) should have comments through in about a week. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Some parts of the text flow awkwardly, but I'm gonna try and focus on more concrete things to improve. Still just suggestions, though.

work featured a degree of craftsmanship I'd be hesitant to express an opinion in wikivoice?

The distinction between couture and RTW isn't one of opinion or aesthetic. Couture is a specific designation for fashion that is hand-made and custom-fitted, with high-end materials and intricate work. McQueen wasn't running a couture house, but he made his designs (especially the showpieces) to nearly that standard because he was in it for the art.

The "oyster dress" is a riff on a 1987 design by John Galliano called the "shellfish dress" possibly a comma after "Galliano"

I don't think it needs one, although I don't have a specific grammatical rule in mind

Galliano's shellfish dress was named for its layers of white organza ruffles that resembled stacked clamshells. [[Clam|clamshells]] can be turned into [[clam]]shells, and link organza

Linked organza

I'll leave it up to you whether the shellfish dress should be written in present tense per MOS:WAS, but I did want to bring that up, since it might still exist.

I left it at "was" because both the naming and the execution are past events, so per MOS:WAS I think that's correct

would study them intently trying to work out how it was constructed comma after "them" or "intently", depending on your cadence

Comma'd

I must bring up MOS:CT for blog.mode: addressing fashion, despite that being incredibly stupid to me.

Yeah, changed

Kim Kardashian owns the other known oyster dress, purchased from Los Angeles vintage boutique Lily et Cie would introduce again as "media personality Kim Kardashian"

Done

Sourcing

Background

Paragraph 1

Gleason 2012, p. 10; Fairer & Wilcox 2016, p. 13; Vaidyanathan 2010, use a: mmm, I'm not totally convinced. I can access sources 1 and 3 (which don't totally work for me), but can't look at source 2. Could you provide a quote?
- Gleason was a relic from the previous article, where it supported a bit about his performance-art shows, so I've removed that. Not sure how the BBC source is unconvincing - it has a whole section about his bizarre designs, which starts with "Some of McQueen's most memorable designs were outlandish, unconventional and plain bizarre." I subbed Fairer for a different source which I think more clearly supports the point.
  - Saying that McQueen had this style is one thing – saying that he is more notable for or because of it is another. That, I think you'd need a direct source for. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not trying to be a cow, but this is such a basic fact about McQueen that it's difficult to believe you're disputing it. The wording, using that source, has been used in like 6 different FACs, and I've added a second one that backs it up. What specific phrase are you looking for in the sourcing that would be satisfactory? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I was just noting as a general statement – I hadn't circled back to check McNeil 2022. I'll accept "And so the celebrated – and often controversial – McQueen high fashion design was born." theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fairer & Wilcox 2016, p. 14, use a; Young & Martin 2017, p. 143, use a; Fox 2010: Any idea why Socha 2002 says that he started working at Givenchy in 1997, not '96? I can't access Young & Martin 2017, which isn't super important here.
- His first collection for Givenchy was Spring/Summer 97, so maybe Socha is thinking in fashion seasons and not in years. Every other source I've seen definitely says 96 though.
  - All right, makes sense :)

Paragraph 2

Breward 2003, p. 232, use a; Armstrong 2003: doesn't seem to verify the text it's backing, although Armstrong 2003 does say they were "one-time rivals" (i more got the 'archnemesis' vibe).
- Breward was a typo - should've been 233, where he says McQueen followed in G's wake. It's pretty much a setup ref for the parallel career arcs that the rest of the paragraph discusses. In any case, I wound up rewriting the whole paragraph - see how you feel about it now. (Ironically, I think McQueen was far more heated up about any comparison than Galliano ever was. McQueen did a lot of riffing on Galliano's ideas in a very "anything you can do" manner, but I've never seen any indication that Galliano ever did the same back to McQueen.)
The men had each graduated from Central Saint Martins art school in London I would add Thomas 2015 as a source here, since it's one that makes the connection between the two. Wilson 2015a seems to indicate '92?

Added Thomas, fixed the date - 96 was a typo, it is indeed 92.

Both had started their careers as independent designers before being hired by famous French fashion houses in the mid-1990s; McQueen directly replaced Galliano at Givenchy when Galliano went to Dior. Hrm. The facts check out, but I would suggest that the subtext that is ~"these two similar facts show how their careers are similar" strays afoul of WP:SYNTH. Is there a source that mentions the similarity?

Thomas explicitly says their careers ran parallel on 2–3 and 379–380; I've added a ref to the later pages for the "career parallel" sentence. I also added a Globe & Mail ref that mentions both being hired by French houses.

the press spoke of them in similar terms as rebellious geniuses or enfants terrible. Could you provide the relevant quotes on this one? I'm not fully putting the pieces together, but maybe I missed something.

Breward specifically says of Galliano that he had "been lauded as an enfant terrible by the British fashion press..." on 232, and McQueen has been called that more times than I can count. Perhaps my summary was a bit too abstract off the main source, Thomas 2–3, which discusses them revolutionizing the industry by doing pretty much the opposite of what everyone else was doing. In any case, I've revised the sentence entirely rather than try to argue about it. It does leave a sentence with four refs, which I don't love, but it's less abstract.

McQueen resented the comparison between them mm, I'm not seeing that in the source?

Revised this sentence a bit and added more pages from Thomas that speak to it.

Development and show

Paragraph 1

Thomas 2015, p. 275, verifies that the shellfish dress is 1987? I can't access that page for some reason... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does, although you should be able to get the whole book on archive.org unless it's acting up

Galliano's shellfish dress was named for its layers of white organza ruffles: Thomas 2015, p. 56, describes the ruffles as gray? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of those "ugh, blood orange, so pretentious" kind of moments, but I've adjusted

Paragraph 2

with a boned upper body and a full-length skirt I'll assume that this is verified in Gleason 2012, since I can't access it – what's Socha 2002 doing there? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover from previous revision, it supports other stuff about the dress and was left behind. I've removed it now. Gleason does support it, and it's also in the Burton quote in the box

An estimated 180–260 metres (200–285 yd) of fabric was required. I think if the secondary says "at least 180" and the designer says "around 260", the latter is the safer bet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather keep both; for all we know McQueen was exaggerating or overestimating (he was a known bullshitter)

The cost was approximately £45,000. The source says "reportedly", we might want to repeat that unless we trust the source they're getting it from? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Switched

Paragraph 3

The original beige gown appeared in the first phase of the Irere runway show as Look 18, worn by Leticia Birkheuer. I don't want to needle you too hard on this, because I'm sure someone more well-versed than I could verify that it's Birkheuer and that it appears in the first phase from looking at the photos, but I can't verify those from the text. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A version with a red bodice and the ruffled skirt in rainbow appeared in the final phase as Look 49, worn on the runway by An Oost. ibid. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are in the credits when you click on the individual photos

Legacy and ownership

Paragraph 1

Fairer & Wilcox 2016, p. 14, use b; Young & Martin 2017, p. 143, use b: I'm not sure that this citation is relevant to the text it's backing up, which is the opinion of a single review. I can't access Young & Martin 2017, so I don't know how that chips in here.
- Ah, some detective work finds this was a victim of revising when I copied over from Irere. In the pre-split revision, le flou was discussed at this point, but post-split I moved it to the background section and just forgot to trim the refs.
  - Perfect :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
surpassing even the famed Galliano original. I think that strays from critical analysis to expert opinion, which does need to be attributed per WP:INTEXT. 22:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Revised

Paragraph 3

Its original owner was socialite Angie Barrett, who wore it to the Cannes Film Festival and Beaux-Arts Ball in 2003. Marx 2007 seems to say that she wore the black satin Versace described the sentence before to the Beaux-Arts Ball, although that does contradict Gruber 2022. Any idea if one is right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Liv Tyler wore a variation of the oyster gown to the Paris premiere of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers in December 2002. I'm seein' nothin like that in the source? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that was poor ref placement. The next 2 refs verify that she wore it and what it looked like. That particular slightly goofy ref exists entirely to confirm that the Paris premiere was in December, which was weirdly difficult to confirm. Wilson gets it wrong and says it was the NY premiere (it wasn't), and Wilson and some other fashion-based sources confirm that it was the Paris premiere, but don't say that the Paris premiere was in December. I did some digging on Newspapers.com and found a less silly ref and moved it so all 3 are together.

Other things

Background, para 3: which of the themes (pirates, conquistadors, birds) did the oyster dress fall into? Trying to connect the dots back to the article topic... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates, I think it does say somewhere that it was in phase one, which was the pirates; I've clarified and thrown in a ref

Development and show, para 2: or a mille-feuille pastry seems more like commentary than description. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how. It's a visual metaphor. How is it different than comparing it to an oyster shell?

In a contemporary review, Jess Cartner-Morley wrote that the dress exemplified the show's maritime theme, with chiffon layers that were "as soft and close as ripples on sand". Curator Kate Bethune wrote that it portrayed a sense of "[f]ragile femininity". These look like legitimate bits of analysis, and might do better in another section, but that's probably beyond my scope as GA reviewer. If you're planning on taking this to FA, I think it might help to take a look at what's opinion, what's expert analysis, and what needs INTEXT and goes where. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth mentioning "shipwreck dress" as an alternate title in the lead? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the shipwreck dress is a different dress from the same collection

Overall

Well, well done, Premeditated Chaos! I forgot how much I learn doing a GA review, although I am sorry about the delay :) your sourcing is super thorough, the article is well written, clearly not your first rodeo. My one thing is probably that facts, analysis, and opinion tend to rub shoulders more than I'm comfortable with, but I'll bug you about it about FA if you ever take it there :) (could you imagine me being more uptight in a review? yeesh.) I think that's all from me! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks leek, I think I'm done responding, let me know your thoughts ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2023 (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.