Talk:Neptune (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 02:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article soon(TM). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I have a few nitpicks, but I don't believe any will hold this back from an immediate pass. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I wasn't able to identify any issues with this criterion, the article is well written and follows policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Referencing format looks good. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Sourced from reliable news organizations and published books about McQueen, no unreliable sources are included. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   Source review did not find any issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No issues identified in source review, and Earwig only pulled up attributed quotes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   We have background, the show, its reception, and its legacy. All the key aspects are covered. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Generally follows summary style, article is concise and doesn't go off topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No concerns about neutrality, article remains objective throughout, and opinions are attributed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Article history is stable, with no evidence of disputes or other issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   One fair use image, with all of the required information filled out on the fair use rationale. Other images are properly licensed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Two images are missing alt text, otherwise good. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   While I had a few nitpicks about prose (and two images need alt text), which you may wish to review or incorporate, they are so minor that I am going to pass the article now rather than place it on hold, as I trust you will take care of the minor issues I brought up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Prose comments

• No short description.

  Fixed

• "1980s fashion, and the work of designers and artists influential in the 1980s" Isn't this kind of saying the same thing twice?

• Tweaked

• "In his pre-show statement, McQueen said "I'm bringing sex back to the market. Women want to be excited again," then said it was a transitional collection, as he was "trying to find my niche. What do I do best? Sexy tailoring, sexy clothes."" Consider breaking this up into two sentences.

• Done

• "Two main phases of looks were presented, with 56 looks total: the first half comprised monochrome black ensembles with white, silver, and grey accents and a focus on tailoring, while the second half involved outfits in a palette of white, green, and gold with a draped "Greek goddess" look." Also consider breaking up this sentence into two sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• I've completed a basic source review with spot checks. I checked references 16 (Jess Cartner-Morley), 4 (Rajini Vaidyanathan), and 9 (Women's Wear Daily). Everything I checked was consistent with the sources, and I did not see any issues with copying or close paraphrasing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Cheers, thanks for the review. Comments above, and alt text, addressed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)