Talk:Giles Deacon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGiles Deacon has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 22, 2010Good article nomineeListed

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Giles Deacon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, June, after a week-long conversation about images on HJ's talk page, we'll give his orange bar a rest and dig into this article. I'm pleased to see you took my suggestion about standardising the date formats in the refs to heart- that tells me this should be pretty painless for both of us. (Not to say I won't have an eagle eye on the article, of course). Back in a few hours with comments. Courcelles (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment (I.e., the first comment at a future FAC); there's a few ambiguous links that need retargeting; Vogue and New Look, all of which are in the references section. (The Vogue one, however, appears four times.)  Done Images are fine, all the links work. Courcelles (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More refs that need to be flushed out. Remember that when citing a newspaper, the work is the title of the paper, the publisher field is the company that publishes the newspaper, and both have to be filled in. Other problems; 25 is far too bare, especially since the author's name and date are on the article.  Done 23; I'm not a fan of citing a website that's trying to sell the stuff.  Done (removed) 27 has the exact same circumstances as 25.  Done 33 needs at least a publisher.  Done 34 has the same issues as the same issues as 25 and 27.  Done 35 doesn't go where it's supposed to- the page mentions Deacon zero times, and the title doesn't match. Done (That one wasn't my fault, the website moved the page. Honest!) For the record, when you start changing things, the numbers here refer to this version of the article, the current as I am writing. Courcelles (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, June. The refs look good now. The surest way to make an article move on the internet is to cite it! Now, one more read through, and I'll have some comments on the prose for you. (I also through the persondata template at the bottom of the article, which I recently learned is required for biographical GA's. While I think I've left enough, lease take a look and expand what I put there if you feel it necessary.) Courcelles (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June, I'm running incredibly busy today, but the article needs maybe 30 minutes of copy-editing. (I made a few changes along the line of what needs to be done last night). I'll be more detailed tonight, I promise. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I haven't had a chance to do anything with the article today. I've been editing various Neighbours articles, which I'm pretty sure I'll be doing for the rest of my Wikipedia life. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you guys don't mind me butting in, but there are a few issues I've spotted with teh references. The first is the inconsistency in linking- with the publisher fields. The other is that some of the publishers given are actually the owners. It gets fiddly when dealing with newspapers but, for example, The Times is published by Times Newspapers Ltd which is owned by News International (what isn't these days?) and The Independent is published by Independent News and Media. I'll see if I cna help you with the copyediting later but I can't promise anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aaah. Thanks for checking that, it didn't occur to me to check the difference between owner and publisher. For the copyedit, I'm going to pull an example: "Deacon has designed a capsule collection called Gold by Giles every year for the High Street fashion chain New Look since March 2007." two sentences later, "Deacon's tenth Gold collection launched in stores and online on 22 March 2010." If he does one a year (as implied by the first sentence), how can the 2010 be the tenth in just four years? Also, the number of times the word "Deacon" is used in the article makes the prose seem rather clunky. Don't worry too much about when you get around to this, I won't fail it unless it is totally abandoned. Courcelles (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm free at the moment to devote some time to the article. I've just changed the The Independent and The Times publishers, I'll have a check of the others as well to see if I've got them wrong. Brad, I know that sentence sounds odd, I'll have ago at re-wording it. Deacon has definitely just launched his tenth collection, so I think he has brought out two or three in the same year previously. The collaboration section is worst bit of the article for prose, I think. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 15:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "awarded the prestigious French ANDAM Fashion Award's Grand Prix in 2009." There's a WP:PEACOCK word in that sentence.  Done In addition to flow, the article needs a copyedit for such phrasing
  • Source: "is known for pushing boundaries on the catwalk and for challenging traditional ideas of womenswear." Article: "Deacon is known for challenging traditional ideas of womenswear and pushing the boundaries on the catwalk." It's not a direct quote, but it's close enough to make me very uncomfortable.  Done In both cares, I'm pointing out examples, not the only problems in the article. Courcelles (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
June, any progress is getting this article copy-edited? No real rush, but some progress would be nice. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Hopefully) final review[edit]

Not wishing to step on Brad's toes, but on my run through the article, I picked up on a few minor points. I only got about halfway through but I have a few things:

  • I changed "sacked" to "dismissed" but if the information is available, it would be nice to know a little more about the circumstances
I'll have a look around and see if I can find a reason why he was dismissed. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best I could find, was that the Gucci group decided to terminate his contract following the take over. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore that, I finally found the reason. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahem- "Deacon has become a regular at London Fashion Week and is one of the event's most polished designers."??  Done (Changed.)
  • "has been and still continues to be bought"? "remains" would be better and "continues to be bought" is appalling grammar  Done (Changed.)
  • I'm not sure if WP:WEASEL or WP:PEACOCK applies more to "strong following amongst celebrities", but it should be removed or clarified  Done (Removed.)

I suggest your run through the other half of the article looking for similar problems. I'll have a more detailed look at the prose tomorrow hopefully, but I've got a lot on my plate atm. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for your help HJ. Like I said earlier, I'm more used to working with fictional character's biographies then with real people. But this all helps me to improve my ways. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HJ, you've brought up some very good points here. I'm confident this article can get there; you've got a pile of sources. One point for tonight, because I'm so tired I can't see straight right now. First sentence in teh career, section- "Deacon decided against starting his own label straight away, instead choosing to travel and gain some experience at fashion houses." I'll admit I'm not up on fashion topics, but this sentence makes it sound liek it is the normal thing for a graduate of fashion school to immediately start their own label. That can't be right, can it? Courcelles (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)  Done (changed) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a look and I'm pretty happy with this, the only thing I found was an ambiguous "described" to which I appended {{by whom?}}. I made a few other minor fixes, but nothing that should change the meaning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sort out HJ's tag, and I'll pass the article. Courcelles (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)  Done - JuneGloom07 Talk? 20:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, but I'll defer to Brad for the final decision. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Passed, I'll go do the paperwork. While it was a good deal of work, thank you for sticking with it- the article is much stronger than it was before this process begun. Courcelles (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Giles Deacon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giles_Deacon&oldid=1201401118"