Talk:Eye (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 14:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that Taxi Driver became a FA last month, and that Irere is also a GA nominee, I look forward to seeing if this article meets the GA criteria. I will start a review soon. simongraham (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 99.5% of authorship is by Premeditated Chaos. It is currently assessed as a B class article.


 * The article is of reasonable length, with 2,474 words of readable prose.
 * The lead is a reasonable length at 317 words.
 * It is written in a summary style, consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style.
 * There is no evidence of edit wars.
 * The text seems clear, neutral and comprehensive coverage of the collection. It feels that previous reviews have aided in producing a clear narrative.
 * Please amend the verbs so that they are consistent as you did for Irire.
 * Done, I think, please let me know if I missed any


 * Please remove the duplicate links to USD.
 * It comes from the conversion template, and I'm not sure there's a way to turn it off. I've tried using the "Link=off" parameter but it doesn't seem to work.
 * Yes. That seems to be built into the template.
 * It would be interesting to know more about the designers behind the "pieces using diamonds were created by winners of an international jewelry competition". Is there anything that can be said?
 * This was the only source that mentioned it, and barely in any detail, unfortunately


 * Boxing shorts links to boxer shorts, a form of underwear. Is that right?
 * There's unfortunately no separate article about the boxing garment, and that article does discuss boxing shorts (after which the underwear were modelled and named)


 * Do we have any details on the number of people who attended the show, and whether that was typical for McQueen. Given the rarity of his shows in the US, it would be interesting to know.
 * It says about 1000 people attended. I don't consistently have audience numbers for his shows, although they were generally packed AFAICT. Irere happened to have numbers, but I didn't have any for Widows for example, even though that show was so packed they had to do two of it. Audience numbers also really depend on venue. The room for Irere was notably huge and could hold 2500 guests, whereas my guess is that the room for Widows was fairly small, based on having to do two shows and the size of the audience visible in videos of the show.


 * Please explain who Ana Finel Honigman, Andrew Wilson, Judith Watt, Katherine Gleason and Kate Bethune are.
 * Done


 * The Reception and Analysis sections seem to present a comprehensive range of external perspectives. Did McQueen himself have any comment on the show?
 * There's some commentary from McQueen from before the show on exploring women's oppression and being inspired by Turkish music (already noted in the Concept section), but I don't have any information about his reaction to the reactions, as it were.


 * Please reword "The Alexander McQueen brand returned to New York Fashion Week for Autumn/Winter 2022; it was the brand's first show there since Eye." to avoid the repetition of "brand".
 * Done


 * Spot checks of Bolton 2018, Mills 1999 and Thomas 1964 confirm they are all about the subject.
 * All the images have relevant CC or PD tags.
 * I cannot see ALT tags on the images. Please add them for accessibility.
 * Forgot to do these ones, have done now

Another excellent article. Please look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, all sorted with responses above. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. I have done a small number of tweaks and think this is ready. I will start my assessment now. simongraham (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written.
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass  simongraham (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)