Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eye (Alexander McQueen collection)/archive1

Eye (Alexander McQueen collection)

 * Nominator(s): &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

In September 1999, Alexander McQueen staged Eye in the middle of a hurricane threatening New York Fashion Week. Other designers cancelled, but McQueen forged onward with a controversial collection that crossed Middle Eastern traditions with Western sports and fetishwear. Jeweller and frequent McQueen collaborator Shaun Leane notably chimed in with a yashmak veil forged from chainmail. Reception was mixed: the overly-theatrical show overshadowed the clothing, and the theme predictably drew accusations of misogyny and cultural appropriation. In retrospect, Eye remains one of McQueen's lesser-regarded collections, outdone by much of the rest of his body of work. Nevertheless, I find it of interest, if mostly as a reminder that not all of his experiments succeeded. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

 * There are a few spots where four citations are used. It may be best to do citation bundling or another solution to avoid citation overkill.
 * Normally I try to avoid going over 3, but I think the couple of times I've gone with 4 are reasonably justified (mostly where I'm making a broad statement about opinions and a couple times for sentences that compress details from multiple sources). I tried doing a cite bundle, but with the sfns, it creates a third layer that people have to click/hover through if they want to see the full ref, so I'd prefer to avoid those if you don't mind
 * Thank you for the explanation and that is an understandable preference to have. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually did wind up doing the cite bundles on a later pass but forgot to amend this comment &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe well-known cities such as New York City are not supposed to be linked. I also believe the following links are unnecessary, (film, history, nature, world religions, art).
 * Mmmmm...I'll ditch the others but arguably New York City is contextually relevant and someone might want to click through, so I'm going to keep it
 * From my experience, I believe it is strongly discouraged to link well-known cities with New York City being a common example, but I do not have a strong opinion about it myself so it will not hold up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a clarification question about this sentence: (Some items had prints resembling traditional Islamic art.) Did the source provide any examples or go into further detail on how the items resembled traditional Islamic art? It is understandable obviously if further detail is not available, but I did pause here and ask myself this question so I wanted to ask you.
 * Unfortunately it's an offhand comment that doesn't really go into detail - it mentions garments with "Moorish white and blue prints". It's an obvious reference to Islamic geometric patterns / Zellij, but I didn't want to get that specific in the text given the reviewer didn't.
 * Thank you for the response. I got the impression from reading this part that the reviewer did not go into further specifics, but I wanted to clarify that just to be sure. The current wording makes sense then and reflects the source well. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a clarification question about this sentence: (Lisa Armstrong at The Times of London speculated there was also an element of spite towards the British Fashion Council.) Would it be possible to briefly expand on why this would be considered an element of spite?
 * I had a hard time with wording this because she's speculating about his beliefs, and I didn't want to wind up in a "she thinks he thought they thought" chain of silliness. How's it look now?
 * I can understand that concern. The current wording looks solid to me. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the nitpick, but I do not believe the "crunch time" quote is really necessary. It is not really clear who is saying this quote and rather than attribute it, I think this could be more easily paraphrased.
 * Yeah fair, I reworded a bit, I guess it's a common enough term
 * Thank you for revising this part. I have been asked in the past to paraphrase smaller quotes like this one so that is where I was coming from with this comment. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think US$ and £ need be linked multiple times in the article.
 * Me neither, but the conversion templates force it and I've never been able to figure out how to turn it off.
 * Thank you for the explanation. I should have looked at that more carefully before commenting. That is odd, but it is outside of your control. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a quick question about this part, (The show was staged at 9:00 p.m.). Would it be necessary to clarify the time zone, which I believe in this case would be EST. I do not believe this was done in the other articles so it is likely fine here (and to be blunt, it was not something I thought about), but I just thought about it now so I wanted to ask you anyway.
 * No idea. I don't think it's necessary? But if someone else weighs in to suggest it is, then I don't mind adding it.
 * It probably is not necessary since the location is already well-established at this point. I would think the time zone would only be necessary for like a television show or something where it could vary depending on region, etc. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For this sentence, (The show's soundtrack was described by one reviewer as "ominous disco".), why not name the reviewer and publication since it seems to be known since the citation has a name and publication?
 * Unfortunately no one else described the music so I'm stuck with just the one quote, but name/publication didn't really feel like a necessary detail. I do it for reviews and analysis because it gives context to the opinion, but here it doesn't add much
 * I would still more clearly attribute the quote (in this instance being from Alex Kuczynski of The New York Times) as I do not see any reason to be vague about it by not naming the reviewer or publication and instead opting for "one reviewer". I found this part to be unclear, particularly when two citations are used for this sentence so it is even less clear where this quote is coming from. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, done &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies in advance for this nitpick-y question, but is the following sentence entirely necessary: (The show reportedly received a standing ovation.)? If it is not entirely clear if this really happened or not, I am not sure if it really adds anything. Also, is applause a rather normal part of a fashion show? My primary concern though is the "reportedly" part though just to be clear.
 * Weeeeeeell, only one reviewer saw fit to comment on it, so I threw in a "reportedly" just in case. I can take it out if you think it's fine without. Applause happens at some fashion shows (I'm assuming more common now as crowds tend to be more expressive these days), but standing ovations are relatively rare in fashion
 * That's fair. I am not fully convinced myself, but it will not hold my review and it is okay if it is kept. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a comment for the following quote: "The bad boy [McQueen] did good." I do not think the additional McQueen is necessary as I believe it is already clear in context, and I think it would be best to stick to preserving the original quote.
 * Sure, fair
 * Thank you for editing this part. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a clarification question about this part, (dismissed Eye as a retread of things McQueen had done before). Did they provide any examples of how this was a retread?
 * Basically all of it, lol, which is why I went with a broad summary. McDowell haaaaaaated Eye. He hated the water gimmick and he hated the acrobats and he summed up the clothes as, essentially, a bunch of ugly junk that McQueen had done before. I could get into more detail in the article if you feel it's warranted
 * That makes sense so a more overview-style sentence makes sense and is warranted here. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In the "Reception" section, Hilary Alexander's full name is used multiple times throughout, although for other critics, only their last names are used after the first instance.
 * I initially did that because I felt there might be some confusion as her last name is McQueen's first name, but on review it's not really necessary, so, fixed
 * I could see how that would be potentially confusing, but I think in this context, it would be clear to readers. Thank you for editing this part. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe in both instances here, (The Met) and (originally staged in 2011 at The Met), the "The" should not be capitalized.
 * Aah, I always do this wrong, lol
 * I still miss a lot of stuff so that is fair lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For the "Analysis" section, would it be more beneficial to put the Clarissa M. Esguerra and Michaela Hansen paragraph before the Ana Finel Honigman paragraph? I only ask this because I think it could be better to put the Between comparisons in the same paragraph, and Esguerra and Hansen's discussion on turquerie could more naturally lead into Honigman's part on cultural appropriation. This is just an idea of course.
 * I tried a few versions of this part, but ultimately I settled on separate paragraphs because E&H's analysis is so much more rounded. Honigman doesn't have much more to say than I've summarized, and I think it would read awkwardly if I chopped her sentences into E&H's larger paragraph.
 * Thank you for trying. I was mostly just spitballing any idea, but if it does not work, I understand. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not required for a FAC or a FA, but I always think archiving web citations is helpful, especially to avoid any future headaches with potential link rot or death.
 * Tried it a couple times but kept getting gateway timeouts :( I'll try again later.
 * I understand. The IABot has been acting up for me for a while so I've gone back to doing it manually, but there are still issue with that. As I said above, this is not a requirement for a FAC or a FA so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. Wonderful work as always! Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Aoba! I'm always happy to have your thoughts. Cheers! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. I just have one point remaining. I still believe the "ominous disco" quote should be more clearly attributed in the prose. I always believe that quotes should be clearly attributed when information like the author and publication are known to give readers a more complete picture of where this information is coming from and who said it. Once that is cleared up, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Happy Halloween! Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Made the ominous disco change. Happy Halloween to you as well! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero
Why is dailyartmagazine a high quality RS? The editorial team looks semi-pro at best to me and "She dreams of becoming a curator but works in the miniature industry." doesn't give me much hope. Not really a sign but only 4k twitter followers is a red flag.


 * I chucked it, on review I didn't need it anyway

What are your thoughts on the use of the via field? Part of me wonders if Gale and Newspapers.com should get tagged.


 * I'm ambivalent about it, but I will mildly protest that I haven't been asked to use it at most previous FACs, so I don't believe it's standard

The video of the show needs an access date. I'm not sure if the fact should be mentioned if you need a primary source, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.


 * Normally I wouldn't bother, but I think it's worth it for the transition between the wacky acrobat show and McQueen coming out to drop trou

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Guerillero :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Passes my source review -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

SC
Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Nice work. The comments are largely around BrEng bits, with a couple of other bits mixed in.
 * , a gentle prod if you're still interested :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely am. Sorry - got distracted by the background noise! Will do it now. - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * fetishwear" -> "fetish wear"
 * Is this BrEng? I've always seen it as one word, like "sportswear"
 * Yes - according to the OED. - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems odd given "sportswear" is done as one word, and "-wear" is a valid suffix. I think in this instance I'm gonna keep it as a single word for consistency.
 * "pants" -> trousers. To Brits "pants" are underwear
 * I always forget this
 * "taxicab" -> taxi
 * fetishwear" -> "fetish wear" x 2
 * Same as above
 * "Harem pants" -> harem trousers
 * Do you mind terribly if I keep it as-is? "Harem pants" is the generic term, and immediately afterward I describe them as trousers, so it ought to be clear enough
 * You refer to "boxing shorts" in sportswear, but link to boxer shorts, a type of underwear. When I think boxer shorts, I think this sort of thing, rather than this sort of thing. Although one developed from the other, they are now quite different.
 * This is extremely annoying because we don't have an actual article on boxer shorts and the boxing article doesn't really get into them. That being said, retargeted to boxing as the least useless option
 * "didn't" -> did not
 * "prompting a time crunch": I'm not sure what this is saying, and I don't think it's encyclopaedic in tone – may be worth reframing?
 * Really? I thought it was a common phrase, but okay.
 * "Rumors" -> Rumours
 * " to ": you don't need the links on the other three sets of currencies
 * I've tried that and it continues to produce links - it's producing them in your comment, even. The link=no parameter simply doesn't work on this template, I don't know why and frankly I'm too dumb to fix it.
 * Sometimes these templates are too clever for their good! - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Runway show": you've got two headers with the same name, which I think may be an MOS no-no
 * Revised
 * "utilised" – "used"?
 * Why?
 * Because 99 times out of a hundred "utilise" is greatly inferior to "use"; the other one time it is just inferior. That and Orwell: never use a longer word where a shorter one will do! - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok
 * "pantsuit" -> "trouser suit" – and link
 * "couldn't" -> "could not" (twice)
 * Above two done
 * fetishwear" -> "fetish wear" x 2
 * Same as first time
 * "finesse": do we need the scare quotes on this?
 * I'm using the exact word the guy used, hence quote marks
 * "harem-style pants" -> "harem-style trousers"
 * "niqab" -> Niqāb (or niqaab) – but def linked
 * Done

Interesting work, as always. That's my lot, and I hope it's useful! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Schro, let me know how you think. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, just checking that you don't intend to formally support or oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: sorry - this fell off my watchlist for some reason. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers Schro :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Sammi Brie
Time to give the copy a bath... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Remove last comma
 * No comma needed after "which"


 * Concept
 * Remove comma after taxicab
 * Remove comma
 * I am unsure if the last semicolon coming out of the list should just be a comma.
 * Revised the sentence a bit
 * This looks good.
 * hyphenate "body-conscious"
 * Is the comma after "chainmail" needed?
 * Revised the wording a bit but I think yes.
 * The changed wording justifies the comma.


 * Runway show
 * Two sentences in a row starting with "he".
 * Merged them
 * Complete the appositive with a comma after "backer"
 * remove comma, obvious WP:CINS issue.
 * maybe, to put the time and date together


 * Reception
 * Remove comma after "fashion"
 * and and  and  and  and  Remove comma, CINS
 * A bit awkward. A verb after "but" would help here.
 * "respect" is the verb in this context.
 * It still doesn't work the way it's structured. I took out the second comma which does.


 * Analysis
 * Remove comma, CINS


 * Legacy
 * maybe ? This would be consistent with the only other monetary figures in the article.
 * And it would comply with the MoS. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ugh, but fine. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * All of these actioned (unless I missed one by mistake), some commentary left. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything addressed. Support. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 20:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Sammi Brie: Image review
There are seven images. Two are public domain. Three are CC-BY-SA 4.0 from the Musée des beaux-arts du Québec exhibition. Another image is of a burqa in a French museum. The only non-free image is the yashmak, for which an appropriate NFCC has been provided. The original is no longer in existence, and it is talked about enough including critique to merit the use.

The yashmak image lacks alt text. Alt text is present and adequate for the other images, though maybe a little more detail could help on some of the other look images. All images have suitable captions and placement.
 * Added alt for the yashmak and expanded the alt text elsewhere. Thanks for your comments Sammi, sorry about the delay in responding. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz
Hello PMC. Each time I've seen one of these McQueen collections at FAC, it has been promoted before I got there, so with the admission that my only knowledge of the industry is from watching this!, here are my comments, suggestions and questions... lede Concept and creative process Runway show Reception Analysis Images Refs Bibliography Consistency
 * short description - move to top
 * eponymous fashion house - intentional redirect from brand?
 * Somebody moved it at some point and I don't really care enough to move it back one way or another. Does it matter? It gets to the right article.
 * made from chainmail. - link chainmail
 * Linked
 * Inspired by Turkish music McQueen heard in a taxicab and the London Arab community, the collection explored - is this saying he heard the music in cab and in the London Arab community or inspired by two separate things? If separate, suggest reword to 'McQueen heard in a taxicab and by the London Arab community' (or similar)
 * Tweaked
 * football jerseys bearing red crescent moons - this juxtaposition could possibly be emphasized by a link ie crescent moons but maybe it's obvious enough?
 * Linked
 * There were also a number of draped dresses - was also a number of? or is that the Engvar thing I can't get used to?
 * Remove the middle words and try it. "there was dresses" vs "there were dresses" - were is correct.
 * provided by milliner and - the milliner
 * nope. I fall on the pro-false title side of this debate
 * made to look like chainmail - link chainmail
 * personnel who didn't attend - tweak contraction
 * Rumors from before the show - rumours
 * Runway show is used as two diff level headers - is that OK?
 * Fixed
 * Pier 94 - could link North River (Hudson River) (that calls it the "UnConvention Center", the second-largest exhibition hall in New York City) - not mentioned in sources?
 * Cheated with a redirect to that section
 * That's not "cheating", it's a great move. JennyOz (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * weather, more than 1,000 guests attended - invited guests? How do people get 'tickets' to these shows?
 * They're invited, it's not like a concert where the public can buy tickets.
 * couldn't decide whether - tweak contraction
 * Menkes gave "high marks - move her name and links up to here
 * Done
 * Writing for The Detroit News, Nicola Volta Avery wrote that - swap "wrote" to 'said' or 'opined' or similar as already said "writing"
 * Done
 * whether Americans would appreciate the gesture or not - not sure if "or not" is needed when "whether" is already present?
 * Removed
 * felt it indicated that he had "undoubtedly - maybe swap "he" to McQueen?
 * I think it's evident from context
 * and said he couldn't imagine other - tweak contraction
 * but exposed the genitals - nipples and buttocks aren't genitals?
 * I was trying not to use her exact wording but fair
 * Hilary had similar thoughts, saying - add surname Alexander
 * Fixed
 * sexualised niqab designs - link niqab
 * Done
 * Curator Soyoung Lee wrote - add link
 * Done
 * caption ...The headpiece in the front ensemble is a 2021 creation by Michael Schmidt - link Michael Schmidt (designer)
 * alt=A garment made of plates of metal joined together, adorned with small red gemstones. It covers the entire face, torso, and arms, except for the eyes. - reorder to 'covers the entire torso, arms and face, except for the eyes.'
 * Done both
 * 13 Bethune 2015, p. 304–311. - pp
 * 41 "Has the bottom fallen out of london fashion week?" - cap L at least?
 * lol oops
 * Lee, Soyoung (2018). "The Resplendant Body: Jewelry on the Edge - authorlink and typo Resplendent
 * Fixed
 * the New York Times v The New York Times
 * Fixed
 * boxing shorts v boxer shorts
 * They're different (albeit related) garments so I'm differentiating textually. It would be easier if we had an article on boxing shorts, but we don't - see Schro's comment above about links to it. Boxing shorts are the kind of shiny nylon boxing shorts that boxers wear in the ring - think this type of thing. Boxer shorts are soft, usually cotton, and are meant to be worn as undergarments - think this. The girls in the show had athletic-style boxing shorts, McQueen showed off his undies
 * Oh yeah, I'm very much aware of difference - you could link to Shorts, which shows pics and explains derivation of underwear from sport boxing shorts (or even change the redirect at boxing shorts to that) ... and/or you could write boxer's shorts. (That might stop gnomes linking to undies.) JennyOz (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's equally likely that gnomes might change boxer's shorts to boxer shorts, unfortunately. I'll just keep an eye on it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Misc That's all from me. I know so much more now, so thanks! JennyOz (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For the show's finale, a bed of nails rose up from the water on the floor. Strobe lighting played while acrobats dressed in robes resembling burqas descended from the ceiling suspended from wires, - so no-one interpreted this? What does it all mean:) - fly away to freedom from the torturous and black place? Guess we'll never know.
 * Honestly, this is one of McQueen's dumber concepts and I think everyone wrote it off as such. I don't even think he knew what he was trying to say with it. In comparison, better finales like the illusion of Kate Moss drew enough analysis that I got an FA out of it alone.
 * I remember reading that FAC and heading off to learn about Pepper's ghost. Bravo Mr McQueen! JennyOz (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Knowing next to nothing about runway shows, are they just one-offs? McQueen didn't then repeat the show back in London?
 * They're generally one-offs; that he reprised Banshee and Dante is genuinely weird. I'm not aware of him doing so for any other show.
 * No comment from Wintour?
 * Not that I found in any source, but that doesn't really surprise me


 * Hi, responded to. Typographical fixes were mostly covered during SC's review so should be done. Thanks for your comments! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks PMC - all good. I've added a comment above re boxers but not a problem. I can see nothing else to ask questions about so am very happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers Jenny! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review (no spotcheck)
Bibliography Refs , that's all, lovely work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There are no sfns pointing towards Bolton 2018
 * Oops, that was a leftover - removed
 * On the Victoria and Albert Museum video, add the media type and put YouTube in the via parameter
 * Via parameter done, but it isn't any of the applicable media types, so that wasn't done
 * The Internet Archive link to Thomas 2015 is locked- that is, the borrow is unavailable to most, so you could cut the link or add the lock icon next to it
 * Ditto Wilson 2015
 * I'm gonna keep them in case they become available again, I generally haven't bothered with locks for paywalled/restricted sources as it's not mandatory and would be a huge amount of work for minimal benefit
 * Ref 12 is dead
 * Good thing there's an archive
 * Citations that are housed at Newspapers.com often have that site in their via parameters- same for Gale and ProQuest sources, but this is a suggestion, it's not required
 * I don't bother, generally; I got told somewhere along the line not to do this, but
 * Ref 57: International Herald Tribune is the wire agency, but NYTimes is the publication- switch
 * I don't think so. IHT was its own newspaper that happened to be owned by NYT; as a resullt its archives are now hosted on NYT. The bottom of the article even says "A version of this article appears in print on  in The International Herald Tribune."
 * Ref 59: add YouTube to via
 * Done
 * Ref 82: quotes in the citation title should use apostrophes per WP:QINQ
 * I've italicised it instead for consistency since what was in quotes is a major work


 * Thanks for your comments . Mostly done except where noted. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick fixes- pass source review. Also, if you get time, my own candidacy on The Firebird needs a source/image review- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also your bibliographic entry for Lee needs a page range since it's a book chapter. Cheers,  ——Serial  16:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

 * "Eye (Spring/Summer 2000) was the fifteenth collection made by British fashion designer Alexander McQueen". Suggest deleting "made".
 * "the collection's most well-known design". Suggest "most well-known" → 'best-known'.
 * Above two done
 * "Bibliography": you only need to link Metropolitan Museum of Art at first mention.
 * I've been told to link each instance of a publisher, because readers won't necessarily be reading the bibliography from top to bottom.
 * A little to my surprise, that is a not unreasonable interpretation of MOS:REFLINK. I am not a fan, but that is irrelevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Replied, thanks . &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)