Talk:Neptune (Alexander McQueen collection)

Neptune (Alexander McQueen collection) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 27, 2023	Good article nominee	Listed
June 24, 2023	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 30, 2023.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Alexander McQueen collection Neptune drew negative reviews comparing the clothing to 1980s science fiction, Xena, and Wonder Woman?

Current status: Featured article

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 BorgQueen (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Alexander McQueen collection Neptune drew negative reviews comparing the clothing to 1980s science fiction, Xena, and Wonder Woman? Source: Vogue and Women's Wear Daily
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Xiphophorus pygmaeus
- Comment: Nobody loves this stupid collection except for me.

Created by Premeditated Chaos (talk). Self-nominated at 22:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Neptune (Alexander McQueen collection); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Premeditated Chaos: Good article. Had to find the wonderwoman comparison in a The Guardian source. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I would've sworn it was also in the Vogue citation. Sorry about that, thanks for catching it and for the review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neptune (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
Source review did not find any issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Gallery[edit]

Congrats on GA status and good luck at FAC! Under "Concept and collection", consider using the "Automatic resizing of all images to the same height and to a given total width" version of Template:Multiple image for a cleaner look. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]