Talk:Armadillo shoe/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 21:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. What a unique subject! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * All concerns addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * All concerns addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 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:
 * No issues here, references are fine. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Extensive use of citations throughout. From a look at the sources used, they primarily consist of news organizations, fashion magazines, and museums, along with several published books. I do not have any concerns with the reliability of the sources used. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Largely per my comments above, after a reading of the entire article I cannot find any instances of original research or synthesis of sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * From a check on Earwig, the only real hits are from properly attributed quotations. The closest I can find to a copyright issue is the phrase "Abbey Lee Kershaw, Natasha Poly and Sasha Pivovarova" which is simply a listing of 3 individuals, not something that can really be considered a copyright violation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * I do not see any issues with this criterion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Appropriately focused on the topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * I cannot see any issues with this criterion. Opinions are attributed to sources, instead of simply being written in Wikipedia's voice. I am satisfied this criterion has been met. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Article history shows consistent improvements. No concerns with this criterion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 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:
 * I have reviewed the fair use rationales for the two non-free images in the article, and am satisfied both are appropriate. As very few of these shoes were made, and none are on public display, it is justified to use non-free images to illustrate the topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Images include a photo of the shoes, a photo of a dress from the Plato's Atlantis collection, the same collection as the shoes, and a photo of a design sketch made by McQueen. All are relevant to the topic and have proper captions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Article passes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Prose comments
General
 * The short description, "platform shoe created by British fashion designer Alexander McQueen" exceeds the recommended short description length of 40 characters. Consider shortening it if possible without losing meaning.
 * Someone else added this; someone else has altered it. All is in balance.

Lead


 * American pop star Lady Gaga famously wore armadillos in several public appearances, including the music video for her 2009 single "Bad Romance". I get what you're saying here, but I believe using "armadillos" instead of "armadillo shoes" or "a pair of armadillo shoes" could potentially confuse readers.
 * Fixed


 * They are considered iconic on many levels: of the Plato's Atlantis show, of McQueen's body of work, and in fashion history in general. Not a huge fan of the wording of this sentence. I propose something along the lines of "They are considered iconic parts of the Plato's Atlantis show, McQueen's body of work, and fashion history in general."
 * See how you like the current wording


 * Pairs of armadillo heels have been featured in museum retrospectives at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City in 2011 and the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) of London. Suggest "Pairs of armadillo heals were featured in...".
 * Done

Background
 * British designer Alexander McQueen was known in the fashion industry for dramatic, theatrical fashion shows featuring imaginative, sometimes controversial designs. Could you give a little more background about McQueen's impact in the fashion industry? When did he get started? The earliest mention here is from 2008. His article says he founded his label in 1992.
 * I don't think it's necessary to get into the entire history of McQueen in such a drilled-down article. All the reader needs to know for context here is that he was a big showy designer who made weird shit, especially weird shoes, as a matter of course. Compare the background section of Black Christian Siriano gown of Billy Porter, which doesn't go any earlier than 2013 despite the fact that Porter's career started in the mid 90s.

Design
 * When worn, the entire foot from ankle to toe, is hidden within the shoe, creating the illusion that the wearer is walking en pointe in the manner of a ballerina. The commas seem off here. I believe that either a comma should be added after foot, or the comma after toe removed.
 * Yep

History
 * Each pair was hand-carved from wood in Italy. Does this mean they were made in Italy, or that the wood used to make them was from Italy?
 * I have no idea as to the origin of the wood, but the carving was done in Italy. If I'd wanted to say wood from Italy I'd have said "have-carved from Italian wood".


 * 21 original pairs were crafted, 20 of which were worn during the collection's October 2009 fashion show. This begs the question: what happened to the 21st pair?
 * No idea! My guess is that they were a prototype or proof of concept, or maybe a backup, but no RS talks about it. (I did go count the pairs photographed in the show just now and it does check out at exactly 20).


 * In the 2018 documentary McQueen, model Magdalena Frąckowiak said that the found walking in them "really frightening". There's a typo here, "the" should be "she".
 * Lol yup


 * Despite these concerns, no models fell at the show, which was regarded as "miraculous" by the fashion press. I can't tell if "miraculous" is describing the show, or describing the fact that no models fell.
 * I think it's fairly clear that it's the fact that nobody fell over. The whole paragraph leading up to it is about how everyone was worried about the shoes being unsafe, and then we conclude that by saying "Despite that, no one fell over."


 * British Vogue should be linked here, as opposed to in the following section.
 * Done

Reception and legacy
 * I see one instance of Armadillo heels being capitalized. Make sure you are consistent about treating them as either a common or a proper noun.
 * Fixed

Citations
 * I have verified that citations 11 and 19, two of the ones most used in this article, support the text cited to them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review, TAOT. I've either fixed or responded to each point. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look and everything looks good now. Promoting, congratulations! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks TAOT! I'll get started on flamethrowers soon, promise. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)