Talk:Savile Row/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
New article Savile Row tailoring?
Question for the 56 watchers of this article. There is a lot of material in this article, and plenty more available in reliable sources. What are thoughts on creating a standalone article Savile Row tailoring, which would be just about the history and development of Savile Row bespoke tailoring, and the tailors on the street. At the moment this article is trying to tell the story of Savile Row, the main part of which is the tailoring, but which also has other aspects, and I wonder if the tailoring dominates just too much. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've created it. I'm working now on tidying up the Tailoring section of this article - identifying the significant tailors in the history of Savile Row, and also on developing the Architecture section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Infobox
Infoboxes are not mandatory - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Using_infoboxes_in_articles. When there is a disagreement about their use, contributors are advised to reach a consensus through discussion. I don't think that the infobox is adding anything of value to the article, as the information it mentions is already mentioned in the lead, and the box is not as visually attractive as simply using an image. I think the compromise on visual appearance for a modest amount of trivial information, which is already contained in the lead, is not worth it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- An IP recently put coordinates in the infobox. Putting coordinates in the infobox merely duplicates the coordinates in the article, and this triggers an alert that coordinates should not be duplicated. This is part of the problem with such an infobox. All the information in the box is already contained within the article. Using an infobox to duplicate some trivial material creates clutter and also puts an inappropriate emphasis on that information. I have moved the box further down the lead in line with the spirit of WP:Lead, and in doing so I removed the image to put that back as the lead image at the top of the article to visually identify the topic per WP:LEADIMAGE. Unless there is an appropriate reason for using the infobox in this article I think it should be removed. I will leave this discussion open for a little longer. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Tailoring clients
There is a claim in the opening summary that Ian Fleming purchased suits from Savile Row and that having dressed his character in the same suits, the trend continues with Daniel Craig as Bond. This is a jumbled confusion. It is already well-known that Fleming didn't shop for his clothes on Savile Row and neither did the producers of the films. Current James Bond suits are also not Savile Row creations. The footnote purporting to support the claims contains one line (unverified) mentioning that Daniel Craig has patronised the tailors there.
If this article gets cleaned up and/or a separate entry is created for Savile Row tailoring, this sort of thing is going to have to be avoided.Marcvanderloo (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Savile Row/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 16:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I am happy to review this article over the next few days.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Issues (all of these are pretty minor and mainly to do with pedantry. The article is mostly very good)
- "...the street has had a varied history which has included accommodating the headquarters of the..." The first para of the intro is a bit verbose. There is a lot to accommodate, but perhaps some, like the Beatles performance, could be trimmed.
- "Nutters of Savile Row..." It is assumed that the reader is at least partly familiar with tailors (it sounds a bit like a rock band:), so perhaps an explanation would be useful.
- There is no mention made in the history of recent moves towards selling in the Far East. I think this is at least partly the case? (I happen to know somebody's mother.) Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wondering how much more could (more accurately should) be removed from tailoring. If it is a broad article about the street, I think that perhaps non-milestone tailors like Anderson & Sheppard should be removed. (I could be wrong about their significance.) Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Very good points being raised. Perceptive and thoughtful. I think I agree with all (possibly quibble about the importance of the Far East connection, though can see the value of mentioning it). I'll work on all of them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Have cleaned up the templates, so will now get to work removing any journalistic colouration that may have crept in. Jamesx12345 (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- The last paragraph seems a bit enthusiastic, being mainly composed of quotes. I ran two sentences together to make it flow better, but it still isn't as encyclopaedic as the rest. Jamesx12345 (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Going away
I will be going away on Monday for a week, so if this article could be promoted now it would avoid drawing out the nomination process. You clearly know more about the process than I do - I wouldn't say this article is perfect, if such a thing were possible, but it is definitely "good". Perhaps another reviewer could decide? I might have spent too long on it (not that I did very much!) for my opinion to be worth very much. Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would rather get it done and put it through now, as it has already been closed recently. My only remaining concern is the last paragraph. It doesn't somehow draw it to a close appropriately, stalling some time around 1997. Perhaps a word on how business has been since 2008, and future prospects? The article also omits Abercrombie, which caused something of a stir recently. I might do a bit of research myself and try and get it done by this evening. Jamesx12345 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Will put through
This, I think, does meet the GA criteria as it stands. The final paragraph is commented out and awaiting expansion or deletion, but it seems it would be impossible to reference in a satisfactory fashion given the nature of what is being said. As such, I think this version merits promotion, even though there is scope for further expansion. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)