Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joan (Alexander McQueen collection)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 August 2024 [1].

Joan (Alexander McQueen collection)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's 1998. Fresh off of the watery theatrics of Untitled, Alexander McQueen decides he's going to rein it in a bit with Joan. Just a long straight runway, black ashes on it, moody industrial lighting – oh, and a masked woman writhing in a giant ring of fire to cap it all off, of course. Based on McQueen's obsession with Joan of Arc, the collection featured a stark red black and grey palette and androgynous clothing based on priestly garments and armour. Just about everybody loved it, except The Sun columnist Jane Moore, who wrote an irate column after McQueen denied her entry to the show. The strange, ambiguous finale has been variously interpreted as violent, sensual, redemptive, and triumphant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • File:Mcqueen joan finale.gif oooh, a fair use gif! Rare case here, but checks out.
  • File:Paris-statue-J d'arc 02.jpg - CC-BY-SA
  • File:Melun-diptychon-detail.gif - PD
  • File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 45.jpg - CC-BY-SA
  • File:Daguerreotype of three girls, Carl Gustav Oehme, 1845 (cropped).jpg - PD
  • File:Joan Look 42 from Alexander McQueen Savage Beauty.jpg - CC-BY

Everything has appropriate alt-text and is laid out well. All images seem relevant to the subject at hand. Happy to Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • When I first read the lead, I was unsure about this sentence: (Several celebrities attended, including actress Kate Winslet and model Kate Moss.) I was not sure if it is notable enough to highlight in the lead and the selection of Winslet seemed a tad random. I would think that McQueen banned several news outlets from the show would be more notable than the celebrity guests.
    • Yes, good point. Swapped.
  • The pronoun usage in this part,(Particularly in his early career, journalists often framed McQueen as something of a working-class trespasser), seems off to me. I would think that the "his" would need to reference the subject of the sentence, which in this case is the journalists and not McQueen. Maybe changing it to "Particularly in McQueen's early career ... often framed him as".
    • Reworded
  • For the second paragraph of the "Background" section, the placement of the sentence on menswear in McQueen's collection feels a bit random. The paragraph is mostly about the theatricality of his collections so this does not really seem to fit there.
  • I think that for this part, (causing his friend Simon Costin to resign), it would be helpful to have some additional context on who Costin is outside of his friendship with McQueen as it is unclear what position he is resigning from.
    • I don't really think we need to spend much time on Costin, the point is really more that McQueen was being a total ass around this time because of pressure
  • Does robot need to be capitalized in "Robot couture"?
  • For this part, (McQueen had worked with Garland before), could you provide a clearer timeline or examples of other things that they have worked on? I only asked because in previous sentences, examples are given, like with Sarah Harmarnee for instance.
    • I'm not sure much context is needed, as she solely does makeup. I think the reader can infer from the second clause which says it's Palau's first show. If they had worked together on something different absolutely I would put that in there, but that's it.
  • I think you can cut this part, (one of the last in the show), as it does not add much. The reader already knows that there are 91 looks so they would know that Look 78 would be toward the end of the show.
    • Removed
  • Maybe I am just being dense, and if I am, sorry in advance, but I am not fully sure what the quote means in this sentence: (Menkes felt the photo-printed items were "less assured".)
    • "Assured" in this context means "confident", so basically she's saying she thinks McQueen kinda doesn't seem like he knew what he was doing with them, compared to other stuff which is strong and on-theme.
  • I am not sure the following sentence really adds much: (Writer Chloe Fox called the finale "spectacular".) The one-word quote does not really clarify or illustrate anything further to the reader, and unless more could be added from this particular reviewer, I think it would be best to keep the focus on the other comments.
  • From what I remember, Lady Gaga wearing the outfit at the VMAs was quite iconic. Would it be possible to briefly mention the reception to that? I was debating on whether or not that would be outside of the scope of this article. However, I think something brief would help to further illustrate the legacy and impact these looks had outside of the show itself.
    • Let me see what I can find
      • Okay, I wasn't able to find a ton of reception, but I was able to find Gaga talking about the meaning of the look, which I liked just as much
  • Nina Bo'nina Brown wore a modified version of the red lace dress on season nine of RuPaul's Drag Race (for an episode where the contestants wore outfits inspired by Lady Gaga's looks). Do you think that would be notable enough to briefly mention here as part of the show's legacy?
    • Ah, I didn't know this! I'll have a look and see what I can find.
      • Now this, I could not find anything for. It's possible my google fu is just weak, but I didn't find anything that really discussed it in any detail, so I'm going to leave it out for now. (But if you have any knowledge of a useful source, please!)

Wonderful work as always. I really enjoyed reading through this article. My comments are rather minor and mostly nitpick-y. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I did not miss anything, although I imagine that I will not find anything further. Best of luck with this FAC and I hope you have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you as always for your comments, Aoba! My articles are always better after you look at them :) Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the kind words! I really do appreciate that, and it is always a joy to work with you. I have added some potential references for the Nina Bo'nina Brown version of the red dress, and I trust your judgement on whether or not that would be enough to warrant a mention in this article. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Great job! Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering - partial source check

[edit]

Just zooming through as many non-sfn fns as I can in 15 minutes:

  1. fn 3: eh, I don't think you need this one here? btw, it's also fn 12, you should probably merge these
  2. fn 4: definitely move this one to futher reading instead. This isn't actually about the cited claim at all. I think you should just remove the footnotes from this sentence anyway, since it's so top-level; if the rest of the article doesn't inherently confirm the information in this sentence, you have much bigger problems than citation going on.
    Merged the duplicate refs, but I disagree on removing these; I've been knocked at FAC before for making these kind of broad claims without multiple sources. I feel the pages I cite for the T&F source definitely support the broad claim.
    With respect to the people who have told you that in previous FACs, I don't think that's reasonable. In the case of the second footnote, it's actively misleading, since that isn't what the source is even about. If it were my work being cited in this way, I'd be a bit confused, a bit annoyed, and I'd remove the citation myself.
    I'm sorry that you don't think that it's reasonable, but in terms of the FAC criteria, which asks content to be verifiable and preferably cited, having the citations is better than not. As to your second point, a source doesn't have to be wholly about the content it's supporting for it to support the content, so again, there's no reason for removal since the specific pages I cited do support the content.
    Ah, I was just going to say that the problem with that one would be solved if you cited a specific page number for that source, rather than just citing it generically, but I see now that you did do that, so that's my bad. No more "skimming through as many non-sfns as I can in 15 minutes" for me. I still think this is so top-level it doesn't need specific citations, but I no longer think that's a misleading citation.
  3. fn 11a: This sentence worries me a bit. He felt this? I think you're just looking for "said" or "wrote". I can't find this in the source to give a better suggestion.
    I've used "felt" as a synonym for "said" in a number of FACs before without issue, mainly to avoid repetition. The google translated quote that I'm basing this on is "Matheson explains that the theme of persecution plays a huge role in the artist's narrative, who came from humble origins in the working class of England: “He stood up for those who were not recognized for their potential or who were treated unfairly.”"
    Sorry, disagreeing with your previous FACs again, then. "Felt' is not reasonable here, especially since this is not a subjective assessment involving feelings, so much as a statement of fact: the work contains these themes. (Subjectivity would be if he was saying it was the most important theme, or judging it in some other way - but this is just fact.)
    I've added another citation and revised the wording entirely.
  4. fn 11b: the thing that needs checking here is whether anyone calls McQueen "historicist" - I'm not sure what that word is in Italian, so I have no idea. imo the sentence would work just as well if you removed the historicist bit; the rest is so obvious to anyone reading the rest of the article that you don't need a specific citation here.
    The source is Brazilian Portuguese, not Italian. In the translated version, the paragraph "Although he began his career..." goes into what I'm saying, with the historical references and the self-referential revision of earlier designs/ideas. I don't understand why I would remove the historicist part, as it's important to the remainder of the article, which talks about McQueen using historical designs for the collection. And again, I have been knocked at FAC before for not explicitly citing what's in a given sentence, so I do think I need the refs here.
    I agree that you would need a source here for calling it "historicist". I'm looking for a source that says exactly that word in this context. If you don't have one, that's fine - I really think the sentence works just as well if you remove the beginning of the sentence and just leave it with the remaining, which explains the historical angle.
    With all due respect, the V&A source specifically says "One of the defining features of Alexander McQueen's collections was their far-reaching historicism." The Elle source backs that up even if it doesn't use that precise word, and covers the self-referential aspect.
    Great! This comment was when I was checking fn11b, and I didn't see that exact word there. If it's in fn 3, you're fine for this one obviously.
  5. fn 11c: I don't think he "argued" this so much as stated it as fact. I don't see any reason to imagine this is a controversial statement, so you can just start this sentence with "With Joan..." and not specifically attribute it.
    It's a subjective assessment, not an objective fact, so I felt it best to attribute
  6. fn 11d: I don't see anything about sexuality in here at all? Is this citation a mistake maybe? No ctrl+f hits for "hem" either, and these images are definitely not sexual, plunging necklines, etc.
    From the gtranslated article: "Irreverence and provocation like this defined the presentation, which also flirted with a more aggressive and dark form of sensuality, combining red contact lenses with sheer fabrics, slits, necklines and mini lengths."
    Okay, I was wondering a bit if that was it. In that case I would say the sentence in our article needs changing. Sexuality and sensuality are not synonymous, and the distinction here is important imo. These pieces are weird and draw attention to people's bodies in arresting ways - we're talking about impact and feeling more than physical arousal.
    Revised.

Ack, that was 15 minutes already, so I'm back to work. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for having a look, even if your time was limited. Sorry to push back so much, but I think perhaps there were some issues with the translation software you used to check ref 11 - maybe you ran it as Italian? I've provided quotes, if that helps. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Push back all you like! My I'm-rushing-through-this-as-fast-as-I-can glance is what ID'd it as Italian, as it happens - gtrans says it's Brazilian Portuguese. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did note that above. I've responded to your comments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another quick zoom through the most accessible fns, working from this diff, in case fn numbers change, sigs on each line for your convenience in replying:

  1. fn 16a: I think this is the wrong Vogue link? Did you mean this one: [2]? It mentions the water, but not that the runway was flooded - but I'm not sure if I'm seeing the entire article here or if I'm being locked out of the rest of it by a paywall. asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This one's my mistake both ways round. I was crossing the Untitled runway with Eye and Bellmer la Poupee. Untitled had clear water tanks and rain but the models didn't walk in the water. It was Bellmer and Eye that had flooded runways that the models waded through. I've revised the wording and fixed the Vogue ref.
  2. fn 16b,c: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. fn16d, e: imo these are redundant, given how you already cited this in fn 16d and it's clear the source will still be the same asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, fair
  4. fn16f: not sure what's going on here, when I click on this one it doesn't send me anywhere asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, it's bundled in with ref 89, which begins "Several remarked upon the contrast of elements..."
  5. fn18: this doesn't verify the sentence it's attached to asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "religion was a fascination for McQueen throughout his career"? Regardless, I've dumped it, as it's a review of the collection the Bolton book is from, so largely redundant to it
  6. fn21: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fn23a: checks out for the Dante claim asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. fn23b: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. fn26: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. fn27: checks out, but also there's some context here that I think would be helpful to include: I don't think "creative differences" quite gets across the issue, which appears to be that Givenchy "was all about elegance and ladylike tailoring and then this wild-child street kid ripped the hell out of it". asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, that sentence basically boils down to "creative differences" in more words. I don't think it's necessary to get into the weeds of why it was a bad match. The reader only needs to know that it wasn't working and McQueen was a huge dick about it unhappy with the situation
  11. fn30: same problem as fn16f, where's this supposed to point? asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's so weird. I removed some images from the multi-image template and I guess the caption (with ref) didn't get removed somehow, so the article was basically showing an invisible reference. (This was the same problem with ref 42; I've tidied both now)
  12. fn38: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. fn42: also not working? I'm getting very confused asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering, most fixes made and I've replied above where necessary. Thanks for doing the source review, I appreciate it! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ZKang123

[edit]

Will be looking into this.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • By "collection" at the beginning, I understand this is a fashion showcase?
    • Yes, "collection" is the typical word for a set of fashion designed with a unifying concept, presented seasonally
  • McQueen caused an upset by banning several journalists from attending. – Maybe can elaborate a little further why? And cite a few examples of banned journalists
    I considered expanding on this when writing the lead, but decided against it. I'd have to explain that he (allegedly) did it for class reasons, which would necessitate the quote, and I prefer not to quote in leads.
  • Production was handled by McQueen's usual creative team. – This short sentence by itself seems to be left hanging a bit. Might combine with the latter sentence
    The general statement about the creative team doesn't relate to the details of the set design though (there were other recurring personnel like hair and makeup for example)
  • as something of a working-class trespasser – "as something of" seems a little unencyclopedic unless you are quoting right from the source.
    Fair, I've cut it entirely.
  • McQueen's collections were both historicist, in that... , and self-referential, in that... – probably just me but I'm not very used to the repetition of "in that" here. Maybe you could say: ...historicist through his adaptation of historical narratives and concepts, and self-referential as he revisited and reworked ideas between collections.. Maybe consider splitting the sentences.
    Normally I'm quite a hawk about repetition, but here it's intentional and I think it works better than your suggested tweaks. I'll see if anyone else points it out though.

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, ZKang123, I appreciate it. No rush on anything further. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading over the rest of the article, I don't think I have any nitpicks. Your command of English and expression is way much better than mine in very high quality prose. I shall just give my support.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I will look at this nomination as well. I'm currently on vacation and might not be able to take a good look at this for 2 weeks, however, but I'll see what I can do. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • Fair, done
  • Para 2: "Production was handled by McQueen's usual creative team." - Is it possible to mention specific people? If not, I would say "Production was handled by McQueen's longtime creative team" or something like that.
  • I could, but I think it would be hard to justify noting certain people out in the lead and not others, and I definitely don't want to list everyone. I like "usual" more than "longtime" in this context because it doesn't imply quite as much about the length of time each person had spent with him.
Background:
  • Para 1: "nearly twenty-year career" - Should this be "nearly-twenty-year career" (with a hyphen between "nearly" and "twenty")?
  • I don't think so, but I could be wrong
  • Also, I like how one of his collections is just called Untitled.
  • Para 4: "From 1996 to October 2001, McQueen was also – in addition to his responsibilities for his own label" - "Also" and "in addition" are redundant to each other. I suggest removing "also".
  • Hmm yeah. I've removed it from here, and a few other articles that had the phrasing to boot.
More in a bit (hopefully before tomorrow). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Epic, I'll hop over to your FAC within the week. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sammi Brie

[edit]
  • McQueen caused an upset by banning several journalists for being. Being what?
    For being incomplete sentences :) Fixed
  • men's and womenswear Is this styling correct? It is inconsistent with the body.
    Someone noodled with it at some point (possibly me? I don't know). I've cut the Gordian knot by making it "menswear and womenswear" always
  • However, McQueen "got a bit carried away" and the show "turned into another huge production". We have one CinS here, after "away".
  • She was upset that guests were expected to enter the show via a "small entrance in pitch darkness", and that following the show, bouncers refused to let photographers exit the venue for unexplained reasons. Remove comma after "darkness"
  • She criticised the "bizarre little episode", but felt she should not have been surprised given McQueen's treatment of GMTV. Same here.
  • The staff writer from WWD thought that the Joan finale lacked the impact of the rainstorm that finished Untitled, but considered the collection stronger. Remove comma.
  • Callahan considered the collection an expression of McQueen's "ongoing martyr complex", and wrote that "the more he abused himself, the better his work became". Remove comma.
  • Judith Watt felt that it was the end of the press dismissing McQueen as a low-class intruder into the high-class fashion scene, and considered the collection a demonstration of McQueen's "informed mind". Remove comma
    All the above done
  • for her, the red dress represented "flayed flesh", and the dangling beads, "dripping blood" Drop both commas
    Normally I don't fuss, but stylistically, I think the commas work here, especially since "dangling beads" drops the "represented", so the comma puts a slight pause before "dripping blood"
  • Grimaldi Figueredo argued that the finale of Joan incorporated both sacred and profane imagery, and cites it as an example of the aesthetic of abjection in McQueen's work Remove comma
  • Final prose sentence, hyphenate "black-and-white" as an adjective.
    Above two done also

No other issues that I see. Very good as always. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie, thanks for your comments, always appreciated. All fixes made except one that I'm going to be a brat about for style reasons. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that not even I can get that one changed. Support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC
  • "Costin to quit working with him": "Stop", rather than "quit" would put this on the right side of WP:IDIOM
    Done
  • "Author Andrew Wilson pointed out that both Joan of Arc and Sorel died in service to Charles VII of France.[34]": Did he say anything more on this point? With McQueen in service to a French fashion house, was Wilson making any other points?
    I wouldn't be surprised if McQueen himself had that thought in mind, but Wilson doesn't press the question any further than discussing the women.
  • "including both menswear and womenswear": "including" (meaning there was something other than both mens and womenswear), or "comprising" (meaning just those two)?
    I see what you mean, I've revised the wording
  • "maturity": reviewers": I think that should probably be a semi colon, rather than colon
  • Done also

That's my lot. Another very enjoyable piece, for which thank you! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

serial support

[edit]
  • "which he found frustrating". Any idea why? I guess he felt type-cast?
    • Yeah, type-cast and discriminated against. The whole "East End yob made good" narrative followed him around, and he got sick of it being the thing that journos inevitably focused on, as opposed to just saying he was a great designer. ("You're pretty funny for a woman", more or less). The problem is that he's not very articulate in interviews and he never quite clearly says this, so I didn't want to put words in his mouth when I summed up. I could expand, or maybe try to find a chunk of quote to add if you think it needs more.
  • "theatrical to the point of verging on performance art". I think this could be a little stronger; at the moment, they were only occasionally nearly performance art. How about "theatrical to the point of being performance art."
    • Fair! Trying to restrain myself and went a little too hard :P
  • Perhaps precede "In Untitled" with "For example", as that's what you're providing.
    • Done
  • Link Dante the first time, and add the date.
    • Oop, victim of reorganization
  • Any idea why his work with Givenchy was poorly received?
    • It's a bit complicated, which is why I didn't get into it in the text, but since you asked... Givenchy's whole schtick is elegant classic Frenchness, while McQueen's was beauty with brutality. It's a total aesthetic mismatch. They were expecting him to be like their last London bad boy, John Galliano, who reined himself in with two reasonably elegant collections (and even those were controversial). McQueen on the other hand had always been very much his own man, so although he made a bunch of lovely clothes for his first Givenchy collection, he also did a bunch of blatantly McQueen stuff like styling outfits with sheep horn headpieces and exposed breasts. It would've made a great McQueen collection, but it was just way too fucking weird to be Givenchy. The press went nuts, Givenchy management was like "well we didn't sign up for this", McQueen was like "you knew what I was like when you bought me", and things went downhill from there. The irony here is that the McQueen label is now going through this. Their new head designer is using a lot of streetwear elements, and basically nobody liked his first collection for the brand. Any time it posts anything on Instagram, the comments get flooded with people yelling "this isn't McQueen!"
  • If you're looking for incoming links, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc could probably do with a sentence on McQueen's piece  :)
    • Didn't even think of that, good idea
  • Link burned at the stake?
  • Unlink second martyrdom
    • Both done
  • It's true that it does "subtly reference[e] the history of Scotland", but perhaps it more bluntly references (per our page), "the Jacobite risings and the Highland Clearances"? Which, of course, dovetails with the overarching theme of Joan (OR, but the reader will put 2 and 2 together!).
    • Ah, sorry, that's meant to say that Joan is what's subtly referencing Scotland. Highland Rape is about as subtle as a swift kick to the head. I've tweaked the wording, is that any better?
  • Does Dante need linking again?
    • No, I suppose it's pretty close
  • ...medieval period.
    • Oop, didn't realize that was a distinction with a difference
  • Some inline quotes (ignoring those after colons) begin with a cap ("It was fucking the most expensive show...", for ex) compared to others using lc (e.g. "so far up his own bottom", or "a small entrance...")
    • Oh, I've been keeping the capital where it's from the text, I didn't realize that MOS says we can adjust that. I've gone through and it should be consistent now
  • Out of curiosity, but speaking as someone who went to the next school up the road to him, did McQ actually say "It was fucking the most expensive show I ever did"? It's only a little thing, but it jars slightly; you'd usually expect to hear "It was the most fucking expensive show I ever did" (or, "It was the most expensive fucking show I ever did". And no, it's not just an excuse to gratuitously swear at FAC  ;)
    • He really and truly said it that way around, at least according to Thomas; I thought it was quite cute
  • Link crossdressing to Cross-dressing, gender identity, and sexuality of Joan of Arc?
    • Ooh, yes
  • The footnote about the Romanov children is dead interesting—to the extent that it could probably be incorporated into the body with no loss of focus—but does it need to be in duplicate?
    • Main-texting it feels........iffy. Esguerra & Hansen 2022 shows what the image really is, but they don't discuss the Romanov thing. They just say, basically, "here's the image that's printed" and then move on to the next thing. Since the age of that image makes it impossible that it's the Romanovs, I'm counting on it being safe to point out an objective error. However, I don't have a source that actually comments on the nature of the error - where it came from, who first made it - or even calls it out as an error at all. I'm trying to skirt the line by explaining the newspaper and Evans sources without really stating a conclusion - I can't objectively say that no contemporary source says Romanovs or that no earlier source than Evans says it, absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
      I do think it's worth duplicating, as not every reader necessarily reads articles in order, especially on mobile where sections are closed by default and readers might skip around more.
  • Apologies, as I know you've already had source reviews, but I couldn't help noticing fn 41 (Evans). What's "IDK", and why not p.27?
    • Don't apologize, I should've caught that. IDK is "I don't know", and I put that in there when I wrote the footnote but didn't have the book available and forgot to go back and fix it. Whoops!
Another great one PMC; these articles are such a different walk of life to my own, it's completely refreshing. And I love me some macabre  :) Mostly all suggestions above, except. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 14:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Serial, glad to hear you're enjoying them. Great comments and nice catch on IDK. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies; forgot to follow up! ...The important bit  :) SerialNumber54129 10:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • There are several p./pp. errors.
    • Should be fixed now
  • Are publisher locations available for Davisson, Webb, and Netherton and Owen-Crocker?
    • Added
  • "a dark room lit by metal lamps hung over the runway." Could do with a gentle rephrasing.
    • Ah...yes. The lamps are "suspended" now.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, fixes should be complete now, thank you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Joan_(Alexander_McQueen_collection)/archive1&oldid=1242651347"