Talk:The dress/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

: 1a "Color" is used here and there in an article otherwise written in British English. Per WP:LQ, place punctuation outside of quotes. 1b   Some repetition in lede. In first sentence, a "photo" becomes a "picture"- why not a "photograph" becomes a "meme"? The black-blue vs. white-gold explanation is repeated in first and second paras.
 * Done

  2a  Thoroughly referenced, to generally fine sources. 2b  No mention of a US Senator Christopher Murphy in cited MTV ref. The sentence about Knox and its reference in Scientific explanations should be moved after Conway and Neitz analysis, because the Knox reference doesn't support the first sentence of Scientific explanations section.
 * Found sources for Chris Murphy's tweet, but removed per WP:DUE.

2c. Surprisingly free of OR 2d. Checks free of copyvios.  :  3a. Fairly broad coverage. Covers the history/meme/science aspects. 3b. Llamas seem a bit off-topic at first, but they're explained more later  . 4. I'm a little peeved the intro declares it's black and blue when clearly there's no black in that dress ;) But, whatever. Perhaps add "humorously" to the existential crisis bit in the Initial spread section. In Overnight popularity, it should also be noted the "Politicians, government agencies" comments were tongue-in-cheek. The beamled ref in Scientific explanations is a store's promotional website, and the point it's supporting isn't entirely relevant, so you can just delete that.
 * Done

. 5. Aside from anon incompetence/petty vandalism, no edit wars affecting stability.  6. Images are free, with one attributed fair use.

issues addressed. f e  minist  10:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for your quick response. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)