Talk:Illusion of Kate Moss/GA1

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

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 03:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I must disclaim before starting my review that beyond two and a half seasons of Project Runway my knowledge of fashion is limited, but hopefully I can give this article a fair review and I am excited to learn!  𓃦 LunaEatsTuna  (💬) 03:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I believe that is all. This was actually really fascinating; thanks for writing it! I will put it on hold for a week but I doubt we will need that much time seeing as this should be a quick fix. Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns fully so that I can know when to respond (I apologise in advance if it takes me a while). If you wish to respectfully disagree with any of my points please do so—I reckon we can work it out.  𓃦 LunaEatsTuna  (💬) 04:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All my concerns have been addressed and I am happy to pass this for GA status now! Great work on the massive new additions, and thanks for the fast responses and congrats on another fantastic article,  𓃦 LunaEatsTuna  (💬) 06:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio check

 * Earwig says good to go. The only concern it gives me are with quotations that are properly attributed and usable per WP:COPYQUOTE.

Files
All images are relevant to the article and copyright-free:
 * (I think I see the text moving): good, valid fair use rationale;
 * : good, CC-BY-SA 2.0 on commons;
 * : good, public domain;
 * : good, public domain.

Prose

 * Should catwalk be wikilinked or is this not common practice for fashion-related articles?
 * No idea about common practice lol but as "catwalk" redirects to "fashion show" I've linked "runway show" instead


 * "By 2006, she had not walked in a fashion show in years." Do we know an exact date or year when she last walked?
 * I could probably find one but it would take some digging and isn't (imo) super germane to the illusion
 * Agreed!


 * "and producers Gainsbury & Whiting." I presume this to be the name of a fashion duo, but the previous sentence mentions a post-production company and I was confused for a moment that Gainsbury & Whiting was the name of a production company. Also, the way it is phrased (despite the ampersand) kind of makes it look like it says Gainsbury and Whiting. Perhaps replace "producers" with "producing duo" or something similar?
 * It's a production duo, yes. I've tweaked it to say that, but left them last in line as they were sort of the least involved


 * "so the team ensured that was carried out for the V&A's version of the exhibit." This reads awkwardly to me, maybe an it is missing?
 * reworded


 * "transformed into a form of virtual reality" recommend linking virtual reality.
 * done


 * "be confined to an attic or asylum, but again McQueen subverts the expectation by" Is again necessary here?
 * "she called the dresses persuasive in the way" Pretty sure dresses should not be plural here?
 * Both this wording and the above "again" were relics from when this was part of The Widows of Culloden, now fixed

Other

 * Recommend adding a short description.
 * Done

All done, and hopefully before you've logged off for the day :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

As a side note (sorry) I copied some content in from the main Widows article just now and rejiggered the analysis section (sorry). But I think it ties itself together more neatly now, so that's a plus. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice work! I read through your new additions and could not find anything of concern.  𓃦 LunaEatsTuna  (💬) 06:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)