Talk:Tom Ford/Archive 1

Vogue = Vanity Fair
Of course, by Vogue (on my edit description), I meant Vanity Fair. == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.96.30 (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Major copyright violations in "Success" section
The entire Success section of this article was lifted directly from the Tom Ford's Vogue biography. Because this represents a copyright violation, I have removed the offending text. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 02:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This entire article is nothing more than a hagiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.68.50 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is clearly nothing but self-promotion
It violates Wikipedia standards and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.23.79 (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be at least a critical review of this entire article because it appears to be highly promotional in tone and sourcing. There are issues that may not be relevant for an encyclopedic article. 33L71488 (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Capitalisation
This article uses all capitals to represent corporate or brand names. That is not normal style. -- Beardo (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Degree
He speaks of a degree in architecture but I see interior architecture. There is a difference, which is it? If someone would please verify and clarify. 33L71488 (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

He admits in this interview it was an Environmental Design program, the program was NOT architecture. Tom Ford Interview with Lady Kinvara Balfour 33L71488 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

YouTube
There is something I have seen this weekend that is a bit odd to me but worth mentioning. I do not know how they market Tom Ford from what he has done to what appears now to be a semi-YouTube celebrity. Since this entire "How To" makeover thing appears to be a trend online in fashion and especially with male so-called fashion bloggers - maybe a section is in order on what appears for whatever reason to be a current of YouTube videos Tom Ford is doing, so-called "How Tos" that appear to be flooding YouTube with GQ and without. 33L71488 (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding early career and life to the lead
I'd like to add the following to the lead of the article;
 * "A native of Austin, Texas, he moved to Santa Fe, New Mexico at an early age where he spent most of his childhood. After graduating high school he moved to New York where he attended various colleges before pursuing interior architecture at Parsons The New School for Design. Before his last year at New School, Ford spent a year and a half in Paris, where he worked as an intern in Chloé's press office, and graded with a degree in architecture. He began designing at Perry Ellis, and began his work with Gucci after being tapped by the creative director at the time to lead the company's women's ready-to-wear collections."

As per Wikipedia article lead guidelines, a lead should, "serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." I think this properly notes briefly his early life and how it pertains to his most prominent achievements. Odwallah (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead is already long. Generally, Wikipedia does not include early bio material in the lead unless it's highly remarkable or unusual. Ford's is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, thanks! Odwallah (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

clean-up discussion
Per Bbb23, massive changes should be discussed before being done. As such, I reverted the article back to the state it was a week ago (before the massive changes), so the appropriate discussion can be held.

In the last week (between 27 February 2016 and 2 March 2016‎), there were several edits done. On 3 March 2016, I made several revisions to clean-up last week's edits. I divided my clean-up over 14 edits, each with an edit summary explaining what I did. As can be seen from my edit summaries, my edits were removing excess: infobox parameters, new lines, and headers (that were added between 27 February 2016 and 2 March 2016)‎ [edit 1,2,3]. Then I added back two citation needed that were removed without explanation, added a Dead link [edit 4], and did some minor c/e (e.g. adding ref title, spelling, etc). After that I did content editing on information that was newly added (between 27 February 2016 and 2 March 2016). That included removing: false information, unsourced information, and advertising [edit 9,10]. I did a bit of clean-up on the infobox [edit 11,12] and changed where the paragraph breaks in the "Early life" section [edit 14]. I also shortened the lead, removing minutia, but still leaving it longer than it was a week ago [edit 13].

Since a discussion on the new edits has been requested, I left article at the state it was before 27 February 2016. Thanks, 15zulu (15zulu) 13:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this post and explanation. I didn't track the article back far enough to realize what was the base for so long. Instead, I was working under the misapprehension that the base was later than February 27, which would be an intermediate version by, still a very bloated version of the article. I now see that you're correct. Your version was a large improvement on Odwallah's version and on the February 27 version. I have no problem with your reinstating your edits, and I apologize for my revert and edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 15zulu, thank you for you edits. However, all I was doing was adding content, you may choose to edit the content as you'd like or add cite needed flags where needed, but reverting to an older edition, takes away 30% of the article. I will revert your edit back to the previous version so please edit it the article and take out the sections you're not pleased with instead of unilaterally restoring a page from last year. Odwallah (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, your position is unacceptable. 15zulu didn't restore a version from "last year"; we're talking about February 27, 2016. If I had paid more attention, I would have left 15zulu's first edits stand rather than yours. I'm not going to restore that version right now because I'd rather continue this discussion a bit more, but we're not necessarily going to do what you prefer for too much longer. Given that you were the one who added so much material to the article, it's your burden to obtain a consensus for your edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I see what you're saying. I wasn't looking further on the log. I guess I am a bit confused as to why it needs to be reverted, I added content with citations, Bbb23's edit was just cleaning up. I would rather editors edit the page and clean it up then revert the entire article as much of the content would be gone. What I would like to have happen, is that the current version of the article stays as it is now and editors go on and edit it to remove material deemed unacceptable. I know I didn't add any content (on purpose at least) that violated any guidelines, so I don't see a complete restoration necessary. Odwallah (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think the idea is that 15zulu did exactly what you just said. They only reverted back to February 27 because of my wrong-headed revert. What I suggest is we go back to 15zulu's version after all their edits to your version, not the February 27 version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb23 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. I went ahead and rv'ed the lead and certain subsections. Odwallah (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Since both Bbb23 & Odwallah seem to agree to revert to my last last 3 March edit, I'll revert to it. I will then try to add the new content Odwallah added on 4 March in a single second edit. Edits after that will be clean-up on 4 March additions. Thanks, 15zulu (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made the revert & then I made a added back most of Odwallah's 4 March edits. (As a comparison, here are ). I excluded several edits because they were assuming a revert of my 3 March edits (edits on lead, James Bond section, headers). Otherwise, I made no revisions to Odwallah's changes in that edit (subsequent edits will do clean-up on 4 March changes). Thanks, 15zulu (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. I hope the two of you can collaborate on this without any more input from me. I'll go back to my many admin tasks, which take up enormous amounts of my time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * After my two edits described above, I made 41 edits primarily revising 4 March edits. I did it in many edits, so that changes could be clear and that each had a descriptive edit summary.
 * Besides 4 March edits: A few edits were cleaning up old ref's or adding cn. The only major revision I did outside of that, is clean-up in "Creative director at Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent" section. I reordered it to be chronological and since it only seemed tangentially related to Ford.
 * The rest of my edits were regarding 4 March edits. Going through my edit summaries, you can find the specific reasons. Many were just small things, but a few things I like to note: a) Avoid block quotes in articles – there is rarely a good reason one. b) Make sure to use good sources and don't use WP:SPS, especially for anything that might be controversial. Also, remember that this is a WP:BLP. c) Avoid text that is advertising. Make sure citations talk about issue and not just WP:SPAM.
 * I made all these edits in good faith, revising Odwallah's additions instead of just reverting them. Alternatively, we can revert to either the undisputed or the agreed upon . If we choose to revert to either version, we should discuss any additions.
 * Thanks, 15zulu (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tom Ford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121104195738/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-11446121.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-11446121.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Finished check, unfortunately the link was no good, so added cbignore. 15zulu (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead
There has been some question on what should be in the lead. As discussed above, early career and life doesn't belong in lead. As discussed above in, tripling the size of the lead is something to be discussed.

On April 1/7 lead was once again tripled with no discussion except to say "clean-up" or "restoring" to "clean-up" lead that was never discussed in talk page. The problem I have with additions is that they include information not in the main article, unsourced information, trivial details, etc. For example, the new line in the first paragraph is not in the main article and comes with no source. The second paragraph starts out with claim on how his label got notice, this claim being unsourced and false since his label was already known before Jay Z & Timberlake. Then it goes onto advertising Timberlake's tour which is trivial detail about Tom Ford and doesn't belong in lead. And then to advertise James Bond.

I'm not against adding to the lead, but that information should be from within the main article (properly sourced therein) and not new details special for the lead. Also the information should be the most important info on Tom Ford, not that Timberlake had a tour. I'd also like to see some discussion on this page instead of the continued avoidance. Thanks, 15zulu (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Btw, Odwallah/Rockytalinto, the two of you seem to be either working very closely together off-wiki or the same person. As such, you might as well comment as a single entity. 15zulu (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 15zulu, Hello there! Yes I know Odwallah, we are actually close friends and former roommates. I didn't know there was already previous discussion between the two of you. In re to the lead: What seems to be the problem with Odwallah's contribution? I was looking over things and saw that its all cited and fit to be included in the lead. I'm actually not very knowledgable about Ford so I won't pretend to assert any content but will merely look for citations to add to your cite needed temps. Rockytalinto (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Lets deal with things separately. First, you and Odwallah. The fact that the two of you don't communicate on-wiki, edit the same articles, and have similar edits (e.g. writing style, formatting refs, edit summaries, etc.) can lead others to believe you are the same user. Further, that you come and revert to Odwallah edit when you have no previous history with the article (and claim above little knowledge of topic), once again leads to questions. Other editors may think that you're a WP:SOCK. If you're just good friends, then I would recommend that each of you edit Wikipedia independently. Don't just revert to your friend's edits, especially when you then claim to not be knowledgeable on the topic.
 * Second, the "problem with Odwallah's contribution": did you skip the second paragraph in this talk section that talks about it? In your response above, you've failed to respond to any of the issues I've raised.
 * Third, I'm happy to get more citations. Just make sure they fit Wikipedia's sourcing policy, including no self-published sources and no sources that are written using Wikipedia. Also, make sure that the sources you add actually have the information that you add them to source - both you and Odwallah seem to ignore this at times.
 * Cheers, 15zulu (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for for the note, we'll stay off our mutual contributions. Happy editing. Rockytalinto (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead addition
I went a head and added some content to the lead as the overall article is getting somewhat lengthy. Please discuss other additions or retractions. Odwallah (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're the one making the WP:BOLD edits, thus you shouldn't be surprised to reverted. You've been told multiple times to discuss your edits, including by an admin, yet once again you're just editing. Telling others they need to discuss any revisions they want make on your edits is rubbish, when you continue to disregard discussing your edits. 15zulu (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 15zulu Talk this through. Stop reverting my edits. Odwallah (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BOLD, your new additions/edits can be reverted. Then it is the editor who made the bold edits responsibility to get consensus on his edits. You've been told multiple times above to discuss your edits and you've ignored it multiple times. 15zulu (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To put it simple, I disagree with the way you re-organized the entire article mixes sections together, adding info that doesn't belong there, etc. You've been told multiple times to discuss your edits. All you've done is leave the article for a week or two, to then come back and continue making the same edits without discussion. 15zulu (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 15zulu, I'm happy to see the commitment to the page. All I was doing was reformatting the page, which I am free to do. You telling me "multiple times" to discuss my edits, does not constitute me not being able to edit. Please restore my last edits and go on to constructively edit down or up anything you would like to. Reverting my edits is childish and not constructive. Odwallah (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to restore the page as it was before you reverted my edits, I would like to discuss with you your issues with my edits. Odwallah (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not restore the page to your preferred version. That goes against Wikipedia policy. You may restore the page to the last version that there was consensus on, which was before your edits. 15zulu (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Editing is a part of the Wikipedia policy. That is what I'm doing. Odwallah (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just "reformatting the page" still requires consensus. You made your bold edit. You were reverted. Thus now you are required to discuss your edit. You've been told by an admin above to discuss your edits, so it wasn't just me. Your continued refusal to discuss your edits to get consensus, doesn't give you free reign to edit as you wish. You're continued refusal "is childish and not constructive". I am following Wikipedia policy for what to do when you disagree with new edits. You're following, the childish policy that "I am free to do" whatever I want. 15zulu (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Editing is part is part of Wikipedia, but when you get reverted, you must discuss to reach consensus instead of arguing that you're free to edit. See WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, WP:CONS, etc. 15zulu (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @15zulu I'm well aware of Wikipedia policy, you reverted my edits (without an explanation why), and I'd like to know why. You seem pretty hell bent not to contribute to this article and keep it minimally covered. What was your issue with my most recent restructuring edits? Odwallah (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You claim to be aware Wikipedia policy, yet you don't demonstrate it. I reverted your edits per WP:BOLD, as I clearly told you in the edit summary. Per WP:BOLD and other links I pointed to you above, when you're edit is reverted you must discuss to get consensus instead of reverting to your preferred version. As I've already told you, I disagree with how you re-ordered and mixed together information. I disagree with you adding his early life information into the lead. I disagree how you combined paragraphs and made major refactoring without any discussion. As Bbb23 told you above, "it's your burden to obtain a consensus for your edits." Insulting me is not going to magically gain you consensus. 15zulu (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you folk are in your discussion as many changes have been made to the article since 15zulu's last comment. In addition, I have no opinion on the substantive changes to the article as I no longer follow it. However, as a matter of policy/guidelines, 15zulu is absolutely correct. If Odwallah makes a change to the article and 15zulu reverts, then Odwallah must discuss the changes to obtain a consensus but not revert back. If a consensus can't be reached because, for example, there are only two of you discussing the issues, then other formers of dispute resolution must be tried.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Bard College
The statement that Ford went to Bard College at Simon's Rock has been an article for years. There was request for a citation, so I added one. , claiming "discuss him going to Bard when there are sources saying otherwise." Thus, now you need to show your sources that say he didn't go to Bard College, since you just claimed to have them. Regardless of that, that is an inappropriate reason to revert the addition of a ref – I added no content to the article, only replaced a citation needed with a ref – an appropriate reason to revert a ref is if it's a bad ref, e.g. WP:CIRC or WP:SPS.

Thus you need to show two things:
 * Your "sources saying otherwise", that Ford did not attend Bard College at Simon's Rock.
 * Why the source I added does not meet Wikipedia standards.

Because at the current time, your revert just seems to be retaliatory. 15zulu (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 15zulu, nothing I do on Wikipedia is retaliatory. The source that goes against that will be with me shortly. Odwallah (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * His official biography at Biography.com, states the following: "He graduated at age 17, and then enrolled at New York University in 1979 as an art history major." No mention of Bard. Odwallah (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Secondly, The Village Voice States the following: "Though Wikipedia states that Tom went to Bard College, he never attended that school." Odwallah (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all his biography.com entry lists him as attending Bard College. Two, the Village Voice says someone else says that he didn't go to Bard College, that someone else credibility never defined. Three, now we have two sources saying he went to Bard College and one saying he didn't. Are you arguing The Village Voice outweighs Biography.com and Out (magazine). I would recommend for you to some more/better sources. 15zulu (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 15zulu Thank you providing sources and talking this through. I've gone and added it back. Odwallah (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edits
I would like to restructure the formatting of this article to break up his fashion career into five distinct pieces that showcase what he has done. I would also like to add a legacy section as its been extensively covered yet not mentioned on the article. As it current stands the article reads, a little choppy, and I think breaking it up into these sections would prove beneficial for the reader to form more cohesive structure. 15zulu, and others let me know what you think. Odwallah (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * At this time, I do not think you have sufficient information or refs for an independent legacy section. Claims like he's a fashion icon, should be backed up by multiple good sources. Things like he's a perfectionist aren't really relevant.
 * I do not strictly oppose to changing sections for his fashion career, but oppose the restructuring you've been doing today, mixing all the information from his film directing and other sections into it. If you want, have one section  and have the subsections of early career, Gucci & YSL, Tom Ford label under it.
 * What I saw from your earlier edits, I oppose your restructure. If you're proposing a different restructure, please explain it here. 15zulu (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your way makes more sense, I'd like to put all the things that have occurred during these sections of his life under their respective sections. For example, Under "Fashion career" I'd put "Tom Ford Label" and then add the fact that a song was written about it under that, instead of lobbing it off into another "public image" section. Let me know what you think, 15zulu. This seems like it would be a lot cleaner and concise. On the note I was adding multiple cites to warrant the "fashion icon" portion, I stopped because of the edit conflict. I can also agree to the addition of perfectionist being irrelevant.
 * I've gone and unbowed the subsections as suggested - however I'd like to add a lot of content within the context.
 * Odwallah (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * talk above was edited by Odwallah at 04:15, 18 April 2016‎, while I was submitting my reply.
 * First, I would appreciate if you revert to a stable version, i.e. before today's edits, and only make edits to which there is consensus. You made a partial revert but still keeping your edits to the lead or to the infobox. Info from early life doesn't belong in the lead and his "hometown" is debatable since he spent 11 years in Texas and about 5 in New Mexico. The current version of the article is still not a stable/consensus version.
 * Once we're back to a stable version, I would not object to a single edit that makes  a top-level section and other sections underneath. The edit should not have text moved. It should only edit section header lines. It should be clear to anyone looking at the diff what was done.
 * In a separate edit, you can move the Tom Ford songs to Tom Ford label section. Have this edit only move existing text with no additions or text edits, so once again leaving a clean diff.
 * In a separate edit, you can add fashion icon, etc. information to his "Public image" section.
 * These edits, I can agree to, but all of this starts by going back to a stable version, instead of a partial revert. — 15zulu (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 15zulu, I'm underway to doing that - thanks for the note. I'm assuming that the April 11 edit is stable enough? I have a lot of other content I'd like to add under these sections, however. Should I first complete the above and then add the content? Odwallah (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * April 11 is stable enough. Make sure to make your edits in small steps. Make section changes first without any text moving and content additions. Make separate edit that is only moving text. Have any additions be made afterwards in separate edit. At this time, please don't make additions to the lead without getting talk page consensus first, since that has been a specific point of contention in several of the above talk sections. 15zulu (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 15zulu Fantastic. I'll go ahead and post a proposed lead, after my contributions have been finished. Thank you. Odwallah (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

From the new edits, I disagree putting his "Personal life" under his "Public image". His personal life is his personal life, not how he portrays himself to the public which is his public image. It's contradictory to have personal be under public. 15zulu (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've placed it in its own section. Odwallah (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Disagree with all the new subsections under "Fashion career". It makes the article cumbersome. Leave Gucci/YSL as one subsection, if it needs sub-subsections that's fine, but each sub-subsection should have enough information to stand on it's own. 15zulu (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Placed them together "start at Gucci" has a bit under it so I thought it should stay somewhat separate. As of now the article has four subsections covering his entire fashion career. Odwallah (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You've basically restored the section to how it was on April 11, only changing the section title from "Creative director at Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent" to "Leading Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent". I fine with the name change. I still don't like the "Start at Gucci" as a separate section. I would agree to putting it back to "Early career" where it was or to putting with the rest of Gucci, renaming the section as simply "Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent". I lean putting it back in "Early career" since when he became creative director is when his career really launched and he made a name for himself. Versus, his early work at Gucci, was his early career before he was known. 15zulu (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can agree to that. I'd like to include three new sections: public image, legacy, and artistry. Let me know your thoughts. So as of now only three sections separate his fashion career. Odwallah (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with integrating the "Controversies" section into "Tom Ford label". It should stay a separate section, either where it was under "Fashion career", or as a sub-subsection under "Tom Ford label". I prefer under "Fashion career" because he's had controversies since he became fashion director at Gucci. If you want to remove the sub-sections headers under "Controversies", I'm okay with that, but the "Controversies" section should stay. I disagree with the integration of text, because it hides the controversies from the table of contents while also giving them undue weight within the section. It's normal for articles to have separate controversy sections. It makes sure the controversies are appropriately covered while not taking over other sections. I haven't looked at your new images & legacy section yet, so no comment in this reply. (This reply is written to 05:10 version of Odwallah's reply, not his seen above.) 15zulu (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay I can reintroduce them in their own section(s). Currently working on the legacy, artistry, and public image sections. Odwallah (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you plan to include those sections. Legacy and public image is one section. I'm not sure what you have planned for artistry, so it's unclear where that goes.
 * I see you also changed an image from the Tom Ford boutique to a model standing with Ford. I don't think that a model, where you can't see her clothing, is a better representation of the brand than the boutique photo. I'd like to hear your reasoning.
 * I'd also like to hear your reasoning to putting Ford's early Gucci career together with his later career. As I mentioned above, I lean leaving it in "Early career", where it was for years, since when he became creative director is when his career really launched and he made a name for himself. Versus, his early work at Gucci, was his early career before he was known. I'd like to hear your thoughts, since we're trying to build consensus for your new edits.
 * 15zulu (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh I see what you're saying, I'll go ahead and move that up. My reasoning for switching out the photo was that the other photo was low quality and the newer photo seems to be the only one on Wiki Commons in his capacity as designer for Tom Ford. I will place back until a better replacement has become available. Odwallah (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have just found a better quality photo and have adjusted as such. Odwallah (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The new photo is good. Are you still planning to move "Controversies" back to its own section, like agreed above, or should I do that. 15zulu (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added the 'Artistry section' although a lot more content could be added I decided to leave it as is for your input. Went ahead and moved out controversies in their own section. Odwallah (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Notes: I don't have time to look through the "Artistry" section right now. I'll do that and the rest tomorrow. 15zulu (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Though I see what you're doing stylistically when you use italicize Gucci & YSL in section header, Wikipedia doesn't care about style, thus brand names are not italicized.
 * Remove the  from the photo parameters. It's not necessary.
 * Leave section title as "Controversies" since not all the controversies were about design.
 * You have "Ford plans to retire at age 86 at his Santa Fe complex." sourced by the Curbed article, but I couldn't find it there. Can you say where you found this info.
 * Sure, went ahead and removed the design preface to controversies, added source for his retirement, destylized brand names, I'll also finish up the legacy section for your input tomorrow. Odwallah (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure what you're doing with the link parameter for the boutique photo since it doesn't do anything. Italicizing the film titles was fine, even correct, including in section headers. Proper English grammar has film titles italicized, but brand names are not. Also "Awards and honors" should be switched back to "Awards and nominations" since he did not win all of the awards. 15zulu (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed back nominations header, and italicized movies. Also am adding citations for all the 'cite needed' sections and putting them in separate edits. Not sure what you're referring to when you say, "I'm still not sure what you're doing with the link parameter for the boutique photo since it doesn't do anything." Odwallah (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you're saying - has been fixed. Odwallah (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed Ford's retirement plans because they're a bit too predicting the future. If in 20 years, Ford actually retires to his ranch, then we can include it. 15zulu (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC) I removed Sheridan's book because of WP:CIRC. It copies multiple lines from Wikipedia and the Wikipedia text predates the book's publication. Thus the book can't be used to source those lines on Wikipedia. 15zulu (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC) I've gone through all the old sections, so only "Artistry" and "legacy" left. I'll continue tomorrow. 15zulu (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Odwallah (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still working through the additions, i.e. I'm done for the day and I'll be back tomorrow. I removed a couple quotes. We don't need a bunch of quotes when they're not really adding much of anything to the article. If you're interested in adding quotes, consider contributing to his wikiquote article: Tom Ford. I also combined sections because there was a lot of overlap in the content. 15zulu (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I finished going through your April 18 edits. I noticed that you often add information that's not in sources or misstate what is in the source. E.g. Try to be more careful that lines you write are actually backed up the refs you list. 15zulu (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Having "sexually sophisticated" in quotes, making it seem like this was someone's exact words, yet it wasn't.
 * Using this Vogue article as the only ref, write "His time at Gucci has been often called an "era' signifying the changes and unprecedented growth of the company during his control." Yet the article, while using the word "era" for his decade of leadership, never stating any of the other details.
 * The statement "His turnaround of the fashion houses have been hailed as a 'sexual revolution' and 'groundbreaking,'" but the source didn't call the turnaround groundbreaking, only the advertisements.
 * In multiple places, the language you added make it seem like it was said by many people or that it's "often" been said when you have a single source which doesn't make that claim. This is a bit of WP:PUFF/WP:PEACOCK (which I talk more about in the following talk section).
 * etc.
 * Hmm. I was pretty sure that I was quoting directly from the source, often times I combined what two sources said and combined them into one sentence. I characterized the advertisements as a product of Ford's work, thus integral to his turn around of the fashion house. Again, when I was saying that many people have said this or that, I'm pretty sure I backed that up with proper citations. If one article states that many people said this about his designs, I think its okay to put "many people thought" even though its only one source. Regardless, I'll work on a rewrite on the artistry section in my sandbox and post back to the talk page to get feed back. Thanks for your edits! Odwallah (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked through every source you cited for every sentence you wrote looking for the details in that sentence. That is why it took me multiple days, working 2+ hours each time, to go through all the edits. Often times the details weren't in the sources you cited. If you were combining details from other sources, you failed to list those other sources. If a source said that advertisements were "groundbreaking", then it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to claim "His turnaround of the fashion houses have been hailed as a 'groundbreaking,'" because that's not anywhere close to what the source wrote or implied by it's statement and is just plain WP:PUFF/WP:PEACOCK. Let me know when you have your proposed additions. Thanks, 15zulu (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Formalizing language
I've gone through the article and formalized the somewhat casual language used throughout. Things like: "Ford incredibly transformed Gucci into the the global powerhouse it is today" to "Ford's designs were well received by the public and garnered increased sales for the fashion house." Odwallah (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's good to 'formalized' the language in the article to a more encyclopedic writing style. While you're doing that, make sure you're not losing content or meaning of the text. E.g. when you changed
 * "When interviewing for jobs after graduation, Ford said that he had attended The New School's Parsons division, but concealed that he graduated in architecture, and that his work at Chloé was a low-level public relations position."
 * to
 * "Upon graduating from The New School, Ford attended The New School's Parsons division, but concealed that he graduated in architecture. He first was employed by fashion house Chloé, in a low-level public relations position."
 * the meaning was lost. It removes the point that Ford misled potential employers by advertising his school (which was known for it's fashion program) while concealing his major (which would have told potential employers that he wasn't part of the school's fashion program). The changes make it sound like Ford worked at Chloé after graduation, while the original text was referring to his past employment before he finished school. So the changes to the text, removed the meaning and altered facts. The main point: if you're going to be editing the language, be very careful that you're not changing the meaning.
 * Separate note: make sure the language you're using isn't WP:PUFF or WP:PEACOCK, e.g. language like "hailed" is puffery.
 * 15zulu (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it. And for the usage of "hail" I was just using terminology used in the article and publications, I can change it to "noted", and "described as". Thanks for all the edits! Odwallah (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually "hailed" was not in the sources you listed. I'm currently editing the section, so I'd appreciate if you wait for an hour before doing any edits. 15zulu (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, done with my edits. More comments in the previous talk section. 15zulu (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)