Wikipedia:Peer review/Wedding dress of Kate Middleton/archive1

Wedding dress of Kate Middleton

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Now that this article has survived a deletion debate, and has been rigourously edited by a variety of contributors, I'd like to see what further input we can get from the peer review community, to polish this article further, get it up to at least GA status eventually. Many thanks, Zanimum (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I remember reading this when it was on DYK, nice job and thanks for your work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nit-picks.

• I realize at this point it seems like everyone on the world knows who Kate Middleton is, but since the article title is about "Kate Middleton", and the article refers to her as Middleton most of the time, then the article and lead should probably explicitly say who she is.
• I am not sure where to put this, but the lead also needs to be expanded some, so the identification could be in a new sentence. One thing would be to use something like the article on her does. So perhaps "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (born Catherine Middleton, popularly known as "Kate") helped to design the dress." or something similar.
• I think current lead is too short per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. If you are looking for ways to expand the lead, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Another way to think about the lead is to imagine someone can read only the lead (not the whole article). What would you want in the lead then? Please see WP:LEAD
• In "Pre-wedding speculation" I would add the word wedding to this sentence somewhere: Before the [wedding?] day, there was much speculation as to what Catherine Middleton would choose for her [wedding?] dress.
• I think I would clarify this a bit Also suggested were Victoria Beckham,[5] Sophie Cranston's Libelula,[6][7] Jasper Conran,[8][9] ... So perhaps Other designers whose names were suggested included ... or even just Other designers suggested were ..
• Did any commentators followup on the "Alexander McQueen is owned by Gucci" concerns expressed before the wedding?
• Needs a ref It has a lace applique bodice with detailing symbolising the nations of the United Kingdom.
• Missing word? The lace bodice design was hand-made using a technique that originated in Ireland in the 1820s called Carrickmacross, which involved cutting out the detailings of roses (symbolising England), thistles (Scotland), daffodils (Wales), and shamrocks (Ireland),[14][15] [and?] applying them to the ivory silk tulle individually.[16]
• MOS says to use just the last name once the article has introduced someone with their full name - so fix things like The whole process was overseen and put together by hand by Ms Burton and her team. and ...using UK fabrics which had been specially sourced by Sarah Burton.... Do not change direct quotations like Sarah Burton channelled a new take on classicism for a modern-day bride who will one day be queen. though.
• I would add the date to this caption A replica of the dress outside a shop in Belfast [on 1 May, two days after the wedding]
• If a change is made to a quotation, the MOS says to use [square brackets] for the change. So I think Karl Lagerfeld wrote "The dress is classic and goes very well in the Westminster decor. It almost reminds me of Elizabeth's wedding, the royal weddings in the (19)50s. ... should be ...the royal weddings in the [19]50s. ...
• Missing word? Mark Badgley, [of?] Badgley Mischka wrote that "It's the kind of gown that will stand the test of time.
• References need to be consistent - is is "first name then last name", or "Last name, first name"? Both are used
• I also checked one ref - the Toronto Sun, current ref 30, see here. The author is given as "Rebecca Zamon" but for some reason the article ref lists it as by "nurun.com"
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)