Talk:Morphsuits/GA2

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 13:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert as needed. Overall this is quite a long way from GA, and I doubt it can be fixed in the time frame of a GA review. However, you've been waiting a long time for the review, so I'll place the article on hold until you get a chance to respond. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are some dead links: see here.
 * Any particular reason to include citations in the lead? It's not a problem for GA, but it's not necessary in the lead except for controversial statements and direct quotes.
 * The year of founding is not in the lead, and only implied in the body by the shipping date of the first product.
 * Three sentences in two paragraphs in the lead is not a good look; for an article this long one (or at most two) paragraphs would suffice; and we should avoid single-sentence paragraphs if at all possible.
 * They are working on a womenswear line: This is cited to a 2012 source; I'd either remove this or, if you can bring it up to date, give current details, along with an "As of 2018" qualifier. And doesn't this duplicate "Expansion plans include...female-targeted accessories"?  The same thing applies to that sentence in any case, since that's a 2011 source.
 * The relationship with AFG Media is unclear in the lead. From looking through the rest of the article I think AFG Media is the same three people who founded Morphsuits, but this should be clear when you mention the company.  The body of the article doesn't clarify this either.
 * The data in the infobox needs to be cited.
 * Striking this; not sure why I thought this. So long as the information is cited elsewhere it's fine not to cite it in the infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You have "recently" in the lead; this needs an "as of" qualifier.
 * The lead should include only material that's in the body, so I would expand the start of the "History" section a little to include the full names of the three founders and mention Edinburgh; and the body of the article should also mention them leaving their jobs.
 * What's the point of the paragraph starting "Early mainstream appearances"? It doesn't seem to belong here; none of the sources mention Morphsuits.  Someone has put an "improper synthesis" tag on the paragraph and I agree.
 * The article says the eight fans in Morphsuits following the British Lions tour in South Africa were "covered extensively" in the press; I can't find any coverage at all. Does the source support "extensively"?
 * As of August 2011, there were 40 varieties, and 50 as of September 2011: rather than having two old data points, can we have a current data point?
 * As of April 2013, stated it expected: something is wrong here.
 * With their investment from BFG: this is phrased as though the reader already knows about the investment, whcih is not the case. And who is BFG?
 * This is not an issue for GA, but FYI you have an access-date on footnote 9 which is pointless since there is no URL.
 * As of May 2011, it claimed to be the world's largest fancy dress brand: I think this sort of claim is probably best omitted without a better source; I understand that the article just says they claim it, but it's not really a notable fact unless it's true, in which case we need a better source.
 * The biographical information on Lawson in the "Corporate" section would make more sense in the "History" section, where the sequence of events could be integrated with the dates you give there.
 * Almost all of the "Corporate" section needs to be reworked as it refers to old information. In some cases new information needs to be substituted.  There are also statements that are in the future tense but no longer should be, or which should be removed -- e.g. The company expect sales of £309,980 in October 2012.
 * Similar comments apply to the first sentences of the "Marketing" section.
 * The sentence about the tutu is based on a 2011 source and should no longer be forward-looking; we should know by now what happened.
 * There's no mention in the linked zentai article of fetishism, so the first time a reader can find out that that's an issue is when you say The brand has tried to distance itself from the term zentai, and the concept of fetish usage near the end of the article, which comes as a surprise. Can we explain the issue before we give the solution?  E.g. "Zentai suits are sometimes associated with spandex fetishism, and the brand has tried to distance itself from this concept", assuming that we can source the first part of that statement reliably.
 * The last sentence is unsourced.
 * , are you planning to work on this article? If there's no progress in another week I'll fail the article.  If you need more time, just let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm failing this as there has been no progress. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)