Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Girl Who Lived in the Tree/archive1

The Girl Who Lived in the Tree

 * Nominator(s): &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

After the death of his frenemy Isabella Blow, Alexander McQueen took a month-long trip to India to process his grief. The result was The Girl Who Lived in the Tree, a wildly imaginative and critically beloved collection that smashes together imagery of the British monarchy with the culture of India during the British Raj through the story of a fairy tale about a feral girl who becomes a princess. It's a joyous collection that's rightfully remembered as one of his best. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review by Generalissima
Oh hey, I remember this one!

Doing images first: Support on image review.
 * File:Dress by Alexander McQueen at Savage Beauty exhibition V&A.jpg - CC-BY-SA 2.0
 * File:Queen Elizabeth II official portrait for 1959 tour (retouched) (cropped) (3-to-4 aspect ratio).jpg - Public domain / CC-BY 2.0
 * File:Woman sitting wearing red anarkali dress.jpg - CC0 1.0
 * File:Pavo cristatus - Jardin botanique - Toulouse - 2012-05-07.jpg - CC-BY 3.0
 * File:Indian jutti, 1940-1998 - Bata Shoe Museum - DSC00438.JPG - CC0 1.0
 * File:The Girl Who Lived In The Tree - Look 23.png - CC-BY 2.0
 * File:The Girl Who Lived In The Tree - Look 29.png - CC-BY 2.0
 * File:The Girl Who Lived In The Tree - Look 31.png - CC-BY 2.0
 * File:The Girl Who Lived In The Tree - Look 34.png - CC-BY 2.0
 * File:The Girl Who Lived In The Tree - Look 10.png - CC-BY 2.0
 * File:Werner en Abraham Jamnitzer (1579-1586) Drinkbeker in de vorm van Daphne Grünes Gewölbe Dresden 21-10-2018.jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0
 * File:The Girl Who Lived In The Tree - Look 42.png - CC-BY 2.0
 * All images are relevant, well-arranged, and have alt-text.

Source: Support on the source review as well. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did a pretty thorough spot-check during the GAN review here, and it passed without any serious errors. I can do another spotcheck if you would like it, however, I don't see any major changes on that front since when I reviewed. The sources are basically the same as all the other McQueen FAs; that is to say, using basically the entire available corpus of RSes on McQueen's designs, alongside contemporary critics' responses in the fashion press. Since this is a pretty pivotal moment in his career, it seems this collection is well-covered among the overview sources. The sources are consistently cited; all books are placed in the Bibliography, news articles in the standard Citation section. Books all have ISBNs and OCLCs. If you wanted to be extra (fitting considering the subject matter), you could always add ISSNs to the newspaper and magazine sources, but this isn't really a requirement.
 * Thanks for doing these Generalissima, I appreciate it :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Joeyquism
Below is a very quick prose check; I have very little to add, as much of it is already excellent! Feel free to refuse suggestions with justification. Otherwise, this is a very well-written article about a lovely topic - Well done! I think there is much to be written about regarding fashion history, and I'm especially appreciative of your work on fashion-related articles on here. joeyquism ( talk page ) 22:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - I initially interpreted this as meaning the estrangement was a result of Blow's death. Though I may be a little silly for reading it as such, perhaps "had been" instead of "were" would be a bit clearer?
 * Sure, tweaked
 * - Wikilink to the wonderfully logorrheic page for tartan?
 * Oh, yeah
 * - Can likely just be made one sentence with a semicolon, or substitute either of the "Treacy"s for the corresponding third-person pronoun.
 * Yes, that is better
 * – I would say this sentence is far enough from the previous mention of Hillson to warrant the inclusion of their full name again.
 * Sure, although sometimes I've done this and people have disagreed, so we'll see if other reviewers bring it up
 * - Is "gilt" gold leaf?
 * Not necessarily
 * - Is there any indication in the JSTOR article as to which university this course is/was taught at?
 * Yes, but it seems like an unnecessary level of detail to add to the article
 * Thanks for the comments, I've responded. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good. Thanks! joeyquism  (talk page ) 01:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Kusma
Review to follow soon. —Kusma (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC) I am pretty clueless about fashion but enjoyed reading this! —Kusma (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Background: would it help for context to know when McQueen was born and when he died? I would also suggest to add a sentence or two about his success between 1992 and 2008.
 * I'm not sure birth/death is necessary, I don't usually see it in comparable articles such as albums. I think "known in the fashion industry for..." covers his success
 * The graduation in 1992 is probably enough to guess at his age, but I think something about founding his fashion house, winning prizes, having two collections per year (many of them notable) would help to give some background on who McQueen is. (Imagine a reader arriving here from the Main Page who has never heard of him and only reads this article).
 * I don't see that it's valuable to recap his biography, nor the minutiae of the fashion industry (two major seasons a year is an industry standard, not a McQueen thing). I would prefer to avoid overloading the reader with detail when the article should be focused on what's relevant to this particular collection, such as his relationship with Isabella and his love of heritage.
 * I take your point on the two collections. But I still think there is so much focus on some details (indeed, those that are relevant for this collection) that the reader isn't presented with the big picture: that McQueen had achieved mainstream publicity by this point of his career, and was no longer just "known in the fashion industry". —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , I've added a sentence about a 20-year career and the various themes/ideas he got into. I also pulled "known in the fashion industry". How's that?
 * Now we have a short overview of his entire career; that should do to give enough context.
 * Concept and collection: "It was presented as a fairy tale about a feral girl who lived in a tree before falling in love with a prince and descending to earth to become a princess." who presented the fashion collection as a fairy tale and how did they do that? Or do you mean that the show was presented according to this narrative?
 * I've tweaked the phrasing, does that help?
 * Yes.
 * Sorry for being obtuse and to continue harping on this point: I can imagine separating a show into "phases", but I have difficulty imagining "phases" of a fashion collection
 * This refers to the show, I've split the sentence so hopefully that's clearer
 * Indeed.
 * "He also drew heavily on the clothing he saw in India" should it be "had seen"?
 * Runway show: do we know how long it took/how many people saw it? Or is that something nobody cares about in fashion?
 * No RS discuss the runtime. I could pull it from a video but the problem is that in my experience the available videos of McQueen's shows sometimes exclude bits so it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. No audience numbers reported for this one either.
 * OK.
 * "site-specific environmental installations" is a MOS:SEAOFBLUE violation; perhaps two of the links would suffice in a less blue reformulation?
 * tweaked
 * "Gainsbury & Whiting" is this a company name?
 * Yes, but not a notable one, so no point redlinking it
 * Do you know who chose the music?
 * McQueen usually worked with the same DJ, but no sources mention him in relation to this show, so I didn't want to assume
 * Suggest to unlink atelier, it does not help here.
 * Not sure I agree, it's an uncommon word
 * My point is the content of the article atelier. If you want to explain the word, it may be better to link to atelier instead.
 * I see your point, but although the article doesn't directly mention jewellers, it's still about the concept of a private artistic workshop, so I'd prefer to retain the link
 * As "atelier" is the standard word for an artist's workshop in German, I find it hard to judge how rare it is in English, so I will stop complaining about this. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Notable ensembles: Images of the various Looks are spread all over the article. Have you considered experimenting with a gallery that could keep them all close to where they are being discussed?
 * I would prefer not to, as a gallery renders them all quite small and reduces the visual impact, plus there is room in the text
 * My main question here is how to keep the images close to where they are being discussed. I agree that you should not use the old-fashioned default of the "gallery" tag, but with "mode=packed" or similar (and at a decent size) the visual impact could be just as good as it is now.
 * I understand your concern, but I disagree that it's better than the current format, which presently has the important images alongside where they're being discussed in detail.
 * OK. Most of them are reasonably close (other than Look 10, which is mentioned twice, it is usually in the same or adjacent section when looking at images on mobile, where this is most relevant). BTW is Look 33 the only one not discussed in the text? (Nothing wrong with that per se). —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Analysis: Is the link Gothic fiction the best way to describe "Gothic elements"?
 * Yes, "Gothic" in this context refers to elements - tropes, ideas, cliches, etc - that originated in Gothic fiction
 * Writer Cassandra Atherton: isn't this more "legacy" than "analysis"? If it is "analysis", can we hear more about how Atherton sees the mutual influence of fashion and poetry in this specific show?
 * I don't think so, since her point is using the collection to teach the connection, which strikes me as analysis, even if it isn't very deep. (Speaking of which, she doesn't really get into the weeds of this individual collection, just sort of describes how her students took inspiration from it)
 * Legacy: the first half of the intro paragraph is just publication of photographs of dresses from the collection. That strikes me as not ideal for introducing the legacy, and perhaps should be in its own (sub-)section. The discussion of the legacy proper in my view only starts at "Playwright James Phillips produced the 2015 semi-biographical play McQueen".
 * I'm not sure a separate section is necessary for what a fairly short paragraph. The other McQueen collection FAs I've done place photoshoot information in the same location, as mostly they come first before any other Legacy stuff
 * "several items from the retail collection" this is the first time we hear about the retail collection; anything worth saying about it in general?
 * No, there is almost never any coverage about the retail versions, they're almost never as fun nor as flashy as the runway items
 * I was more wondering if there was any boring information of the type "it was for sale from March 2008".
 * Nope, not even that.
 * "Ownership and exhibitions" could perhaps be "exhibitions and ownership" as this is the order in which they are discussed.
 * I swapped the paragraph order instead as I think it reads better
 * Hi, thanks for your comments, I've replied above. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Some further replies above. No need to do anything where I have not replied. Where I have replied, don't do anything if it makes the article worse. —Kusma (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the long delay, Kusma, I've replied above. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was less active than planned myself. I still disagree on one point, but nothing big. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Supporting now. —Kusma (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

 * Since Palais Omnisports de Paris-Berc is a venue in Paris, shouldn't it be (the Palais Omnisports de Paris-Bercy in Paris) rather than (the Palais Omnisports de Paris-Bercy, Paris)? I have this question for both the lead and the article.
 * Lol, I do this every time, and every time I tell myself I'll remember for next time and I never do :P
 * For this sentence, (The looks from the first half represented the girl's feral state, taking inspiration from punk fashion to create a look McQueen called "punk princess".), I would avoid repeating looks/look in the same sentence if possible. The very next sentence also starts with "looks" so it feels a tad repetitive.
 * Reworded, nice catch
 * For the "Reception" section, there is an instance of four citations being used. I would consider citation bundling to avoid any citation overkill concerns.
 * Done
 * I think it would be beneficial to specify in this part, (including the long-running Les Misérables), that the musical is being referenced. It would likely be understood from context, but I think it is always best to clarify to avoid any potential confusion.
 * Yes, good point
 * Sarah Burton should be linked in the article. It may be helpful to note about McQueen's death in 2010 and how that shaped Burton's involvement in the fashion house as I could see readers questioning why she was creating a collection for McQueen. I am specifically referencing the second paragraph in the "Legacy" section just to be clear.
 * I considered this, but I'm generally hesitant to give explanations that are longer than the thing that is being explained, you know? I revised it a bit to say "Sarah Burton for the Alexander McQueen brand" and maybe that'll do
 * That is fair. All the readers really need to know is that Burton was designed a collection for the McQueen brand at the time and a source that there were similarities to this collection. The revision clarifies that for me, and I can understand and agree that a note would be excessive. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For Citation 30, I think it would be useful to specify in the citation formatting that it is from Gale. I have a similar comment for any similar citations used in the article (such as Citations 55, 59, and 76) to avoid potentially confusing readers who may be expecting to be directed somewhere else when clicking on the link (like to the Toronto Star for Citation 30). There are citations that already do this, specifically Citations 56 through 58.
 * Done
 * Citation 76 should specify that a subscription is necessary in the citation formatting. When I click the link, I get directed to a log in screen. I would do the same for any similar citations.
 * I generally avoid doing this; I feel it adds a lot of work for minimal reader value
 * That's fair. It is not a major issue for me and it would not hold up my review in any way. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not required by any means for a FA/FAC, but I always think it is best to archive web citations whenever possible.
 * I tried to do this but IABot is apparently "experiencing a high load. This may cause delays in processing your request. The current estimated lag is 2099 minute(s) and 22 second(s)" (34 hours, lol!). I'll have to do it another day.
 * I am sorry to hear that. That does suck. Again, it is not required for a FAC, or even a FAC, so it is nothing to worry about. It is always a pain, at least in my opinion, to do these kinds of changes after already writing ad revising the article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will look through the article a few more times just to make sure, but I do not imagine that I will find anything further. Great work as always, and best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi ! Sorry for taking so long to reply. I've generally made the suggested changes except in one or two places. Cheers! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize. There was absolutely no rush. I agree with your replies to my comments. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Great work as always! Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

SC
That's my lot - another very nicely put together article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "descending to earth" makes it sound like she was living in the heavens, rather than just a tree. Striking the last two words would be much cleaner (ditto for the phrase in the Concept section)
 * Done both
 * Concept
 * "girl's transformation into a real princess": don't think we need "real" – she turns into a princess, not a real (ie. actual) princess
 * Removed
 * "Queen Elizabeth II": just "Elizabeth II" would suffice
 * Sorry, do you mean all throughout or just where I repeat the name?
 * Just on the repetition. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "peacock headpiece": is there an image we can see of this?
 * Yes, it's Look 10, down under Analysis where I've paired it with the Daphne figurine it's being compared to
 * Hi, thanks for your comments! I've made the above tweaks except one that I've asked for clarification on. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - another excellent article in this topic area. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello coords, is there anything further you're looking for from this nom? I'm sitting at four prose supports and a complete source/image review and no comments in just over a week. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

drive-by comments

 * "with an enormous artificial tree". It may just be me, but "enormous" sounds hyperbolically unencyclopedic. How would you feel about 'large'?
 * Sure
 * "Forty-two looks were presented". "look" seems a bit of a specialist term. Is there a link?
 * It feels like common English to me. It's also been present in nearly every other one of these FACs, many of which you have reviewed, so I'm not sure why it's a concern in this one.
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source and there is no rule of precedent. What reviewers for example agree on, or fail to comment on, in a FAC has no bearing on any subsequent FAC. In the case of "look", it may well seem common English to you, but I am querying whether it will be understandable to non-fashionistas. In support of it not being, I note that Wiktionary has three definitions for look as a noun; I assume the usage intended is the second "(often plural) Physical appearance, visual impression." with the usage examples "She got her mother’s looks" and "I don’t like the look of the new design." I also checked a pair of paper dictionaries and the closest definition was "appearance". In short, even a reader who had memorised the obscurer corners of several dictionaries is unlikely to readily understand the word in the context you use it. IMO, YMMD. (It may be that it is so cutting edge that it has not reached even online dictionaries yet.) To leave it without even a link would seem to be doing readers a disservice, especially as it does not seem to me - and I could be wrong - that it would be difficult to recast in a more readily comprehensible way.
 * Certainly there may not be such a thing as legal precedent at FAC, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why something that was not an issue for a specific reviewer in something like a dozen previous FACs has suddenly become one. Furthermore, I don't think it's quite fair to say that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and then quote Wiktionary definitions at me. The reliability level is the same, isn't it? The word "look" in this context is roughly synonymous with "outfit" or "ensemble". I would argue that it is a commonly used English term, not just in fashion circles. It is a term that I would expect to be understood or easily inferred from context by most readers, regardless of their experience with fashion. As it happens, "look" is in the dictionary with this context. Merriam-Webster defines it as "a combination of design features giving a unified appearance", while Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "the appearance of someone or something, especially as expressing a particular quality", with bullet point two noting the context of "a style or fashion". Neither identifies this usage as slang, jargon, idiomatic, neologistic, or otherwise inappropriate for use in Wikipedia. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "The most significant items presented included". In what way did they signify something or carry meaning; or have a noticeable or major effect? (Definitions from Wiktionary.)
 * Again, I'm not sure why this particular word is an issue when I have used it in this way in previous FA collections, such as The Widows of Culloden, Irere (Alexander McQueen collection), or The Hunger (Alexander McQueen collection) to pull a few examples.
 * I have no idea why no previous reviewer has previously picked this up if you have used it in the same sense, But that is not really to the point. I think you probably mean important or major or substantial. To paraphrase Fowler's Modern English Usage, "significant" should not be wasted as a mere synonym of "important". My query was based on the two definitions offered in Wiktionary. You seem to be using the word in a way not included in that dictionary. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OED defines "significant" as "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention". Given that these two looks attracted the greatest degree of attention from critics and analysts, I think the word applies. In the interest of not arguing for the sake of arguing, however, I have revised it from this article. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Normally I would not push back against coord comments like this, but with apologies, I confess I do not understand the reasoning behind them. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Coord comments, reviewer comments: either way you should feel entirely free to push back against anything you disagree with or are unhappy with. Comments on your two push backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)