Talk:The Horn of Plenty/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 16:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks like another interesting article by the nominator and, on a cursory glance, seems close already to meeting the criteria to be a Good Article. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of reasonable length, with 5,009 words of readable prose.
• The lead is appropriately long at 294 words.
• Authorship is 99.5% from the nominator with contributions from 9 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article and was a DYK on 19 December 2024.
• There are some duplicate links, including bubblewrap, fashion house, Guido Palau, Hendrik Kerstens, It's a Jungle Out There, Johannes Vermeer, Le Dame Bleu, Philip Treacy , platform shoes, Susannah Frankel, swallows, Voss, The New York Times, The Widows of Culloden, and wimple.
  • Fixed the majority of these, although I've left out a couple
• Suggest linking Heliconia and papaya in the text rather than the infobox.
  • Is this comment meant for another review? There's no infobox here, and the words Heliconia and papaya don't appear in this article. I've ctrl+F'd the saved output and the raw text and neither one is anywhere.
• Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.
• The article says that McQueen "viewed The Horn of Plenty as the last he would make as a young man" and Waplington states that it was "his last collection as a young man". Are these related? Is it worth connecting them?
• The article says that the fashion industry "would be even risk-averse during a recession". It seems reasonable that it would be. Is the industry more likely to be risk-averse in a boom period?

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • Please either add a comma before "like aluminium cans," (so that is a subclause) or remove the comma (as it is a list of two items).
     • I've revised otherwise
   • Either move the comma to before designs in "sometimes controversial designs" or remove it.
     • I don't agree that this needs changing
   • Should there be an "a" before the second "black" in "a black synthetic dress paired with black leather corset"?
     • Added
   • I have made some minor copyedits. Please check them and revert if you disagree with them.
     • I don't love all the swaps from which to that; BrEng is a little looser with this, but I'm not going to revert it. I did swap nylon paper back to paper nylon though, as paper nylon is how the source gives it
   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • Everything looks good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Sources are a mainly books from reputable publishers and contemporary newspaper and journal articles.
   • Spot checks confirm Fox 2012, Frankel 2013 (although it took me a bit of time to find it in the biography), and Mora & Berry 2022 (although the online version is dated 2023) all are relevant and speak on the subject.
   • Bennett's involvement is referenced to his own article. His collaboration is well documented (for example, the first sentence of Crissell, 2015). Is there a different, more independent source we can use?
     • If we're talking about the Hattie Crisell article from The Cut, I don't see Bennett mentioned in it at all? In any case, I think using the ShowStudio refs are fine (and they have been accepted at multiple FAs). ShowStudio isn't Bennett's, he has no editorial control. It belongs to photographer Nick Knight, who is deeply involved involved in the industry and was a close friend of McQueen's. If Bennett hadn't worked with McQueen, Knight wouldn't be talking to him about his work with McQueen. (I realize that I accidentally left the 2nd ref as the wrong link, I've corrected it now to the Horn of Plenty backstage stuff).

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.
   • Spot checks confirm that the articles by Alexander, Bennett, Bucci, Crissell, and Yotka are all used fairly.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 23.1% chance of copyright violation with an article in Dazed, although the majority of overlaps seem to be quotes. Similarly, the similarity with the article in The Other Journal listed (20.6% similarity) is based on a quote from McQueen and titles. These are not sufficient to cause concerns.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article does a good job of covering the topic, including giving contemporary reviews, reflections and retrospective perspectives.

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

   • The article is compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems balanced.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The images seem to have appropriate CC tags (providing the comment on copyright is correct).

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are appropriate and cover many of the different looks.
   • Is there an image of McQueen or one from the catwalk that could be added?
     • Our only image of McQueen is File:Alexander McQueen by FashionWirePress.jpg, and I hate it. It is such a bad angle and he's making a stupid face. Since we have all these nice images of the clothes, I'd rather not use it. But you're right - we need a catwalk image to show off the makeup. Meant to do that and forgot. There's one in there now.

@Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, simongraham, I've made most of the requested changes and responded to anything else. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)