This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
The sourcing is exhaustive to the point of craziness, but the content doesn't quite seem encyclopedic to me. Do I just not understand fashion, or is this something we need to do something about? It obviously needs cleanup, no matter what we decide, but I'm not really sure how to proceed. I notice there are other, similar, articles that the author has made, some of which were userified, and others which were marked off as reviewed by other reviewers. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 10:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
155 references to vogue.com, 18 to www.vogue.co.uk, 14 to www.vogue.it and one to en.vogue.fr. Somebody really likes Vogue. As a source, Vogue is actually pretty decent. Remember how Gwyneth Paltrow couldn't get Condé Nast to publish goop magazine because CN have separation of editorial and advertising and (gasp!) fact checkers? Sure, it's got a ridiculous amount of detail for a subject that would never, ever appear in Encyclopædia Britannica. (If it were up to me we'd have a speedy deletion criterion called "EB wouldn't have this"–just kidding) We're Wikipedia. We have coverage of Dungeons and Dragons that is even more absurdly detailed. If Valentino were a video game company we'd have an article on every individual garment they've ever produced or even announced but never made. I don't think there's any policy or guideline that could be fairly applied to this article that would see it changed to something more, um, encyclopedic. Vexations (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find little to hmm about here. There's a lot going on at that page so I didn't just mark it reviewed myself but I have no notability concerns. Beyond Vogue, I could quickly find plenty of coverage in other sources than Vogue - Elle (magazine) most prominently but also scattered Harper's Bizarre and Washington Post coverage. I think it's a strength that we cover topics EB wouldn't and think it's a further strength that the community has chosen to start covering topics in depth outside the geek/nerd interest base that defined early Wikipedia. Am I missing something? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: It is definitely notable, but needs cleanup. Comparing content of sentences to sources I have noted some paraphrasing issues that are scattered throughout the article (copied half sentences), which is complicated by the shear number of sources. There are also what I would consider excessive use of quotes in a lot of the sections. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 21:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The extensive quotations and extensive number of sources is what I meant when I wrote that there's a lot going on. I am not surprised to hear there is also a lot of close paraphrasing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be moved to an appropriately capitalized version, IMHO: Valentino Ready-to-Wear runway collections ("runway collections" isn't a proper noun; "ready-to-wear" is a properly hyphenated compound modifier that ordinarily wouldn't be capitalized except that Valentino Ready-to-Wear is apparently a discrete company division). Ditto for the Dior RTW article. But that wasn't really the question being asked. No problem with notability in my view. - Julietdeltalima(talk) 22:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Julietdeltalima: Good point. I've moved both, and I have also done some general cleanup and reviewed a bunch of the sourced sentences for paraphrasing; the issue isn't as widespread as I thought and is largely confined to phrases that arguably couldn't be rewritten without changing the meaning too significantly, as such, I don't think it is a significant issue. I think that is as far as the review needs to go. It is good to have some extra input on articles that are a little unusual, thanks everyone for their input. I'll copy this section to the relevant talk page so that editors of that page can refer to it in future. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 00:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}