Template:Did you know nominations/Jill Stuart

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 G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Jill Stuart

(

)

... that fashion designer Jill Stuart (pictured) sold her first collection to Bloomingdales by the age of 15?

ALT1:... that Jill Stuart (pictured) is the daughter of two fashion designers and mother of another?
Reviewed: not a self-nom
Comment: oops, one day late with the nom

5x expanded by Libby norman (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC).

Currently has a {{POV}} template which should be addressed. 97198 (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

POV tag removed, as I could find no basis on talkpage or elsewhere for it being there. Edwardx (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Panyd, you put the POV template on the article. Can you please address that here? If there are POV issues, then they need to be addressed before the article can be eligible for DYK, so it's a significant matter. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Take it as you will, but I think it's full of loaded language to paint the subject in a positive light. To whit:

Jill Stuart was born into famiy of fashion entrepreneurs. - according to whom?
By 1990, her competitively priced stoles, bags and fur accessories could be found in stores such as Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman - the source says 'low price', not 'competitive', which has advertorial connotations
Her eponymous label was launched in 1993 and included Skinclothes – a range of leather garments, such as slip dresses, kilts, jeans and jackets – with a sporty edge - not only does that read like an advert for the product, but source three is a puff piece from Elle with lines like: Jill Stuart didn’t wait long to make her own stylish entree. I'd have to AGF on source four.
Brand Development - why does this BLP article have a section entirely dedicated to a company's products? Is In 2000, a jeans collection was introduced along with eyewear, shoes and lingerie lines produced under licence. Fragrances were introduced in 2005. really relevant to her life (as BLP is the stated focus of the article)? Really? I understand having notes on controversy with regards to Lindsay Lohan, just, but I'm not sure why we need this.
In October 2014, the company relocated its flagship store to 466 Broome Street, SoHo. - wonderful. How is this relevant, or notable enough to add, to this, BLP?
The Morgan Lane brand is now stocked in Selfridges in London - see above
Curtis has also designed for the swimwear brand Solid & Striped, established by a friend from Cornell University Issac Ross - see above, especially as this is her daughter's company.

If that's fine with everyone, then please let me know (hopefully with an explanation so I can know what to do next time!), but it's unacceptable in my eyes. (Also, apologies for the whom and whit, I'm tired.) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Panyd, that kind of language is not good, particularly some of the more blatant POV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I did some fairly extensive editing in order to tone it down. I think I hit everything identified above so I removed the tag but please put it back if you feel it is still relevant. Although this is a BLP, I don't think we can really separate the woman from the brand and the business as they are more or less synonymous in this case. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Edwardx, it's clear that the article does have POV issues. I've restored the POV template—the talk page does have the discussion now with its transclusion of this nomination—and the issues will need to be addressed in the near future if this DYK is to succeed. I hope to see some action soon. If nothing happens in a week's time, however, then the nomination will be marked for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Note: fixed icon I used; should have been a slash, reiterating 97198's original icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

My thanks to all concerned for their diligence with addressing POV issues. I've gone through it carefully. Yes, there are still a few things that would be better covered by an article about the label itself, but until we have one, I think that those bits are neutral enough now that the POV tag could be removed. Unfortunately, fashion is a subject that is short of objective or critical commentary, with little until quite some time after the events have occurred, or the designers are dead. Edwardx (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, it's fine now and a long way from the original article. The tag should be removed but I will leave it to someone else to do. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, the POV tag is still needed. "With a downturn in the US economy, Stuart began considering other outlets for her brand and found success in Japan," still sounds a bit promotional. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. How about now? Philafrenzy (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

A phrase like "leading ladies" raises a red flag for me. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That phrase relates to her mother and three dead actresses who were "leading ladies". It is not excessive in that context. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this have any outstanding neutrality issues as I've taken a look through the article and above notes and simplified the sentence on expansion into Japan? It would be helpful to highlight any remaining phrases or sentences that ring alarm bells so they can also be addressed. Coming to the article afresh after some time, it looks to me as if key issues have been resolved. Libby norman (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Looks okay to me now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  - Thanks, Crisco. I've removed the POV tag from the article based on your assessment. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Full review needed now that POV issues have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Before I proceed with the review, where was leeway given on the date? It was my understanding that the seven day rule on nominating was tightened.--Laun chba ller 17:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It usually is when we have a backlog but it's up to the reviewer's discretion. I think most people wouldn't fail something for being a day late. Fuebaey (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Otherwise long enough, seems neutral and contains no non-free content violations. I've moved a reference from the infobox into the main body of the text. In the olden days, it was the accepted norm to take on the profession of a parent, so for me at least, ALT1 is boring. The original hook is preferable. The image could do with being cropped down to size, with a lot of unnecessary crap which is interfering with its ability to show up well at small size. I think I could give the one day leeway on it, but I would want to see the image cropped before I approve it.--Laun chba ller 01:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Added a cropped image. -- Esemono (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Better - good to go.--Laun chba ller 12:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)