Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 21:53, 21 March 2009.

List of Victoria&

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 

I am nominating this for featured list because it is an interesting, extensive, encyclopedic list. It suffers from inability to find complete lists in the early years before it was broadcast on television or the internet. Also, 2008 seems to be a partial list. Because www.imdb.com is not considered a WP:RS for certain purposes on WP, I have included as many other citations as I was able to find. I think this list is too extensive for merging into Victoria's Secret and I think it is extensive enough to be featured.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment from --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]][c]
 * Where's the prose and lead? Both of them are way too short. I strongly consider you expand it. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 20:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much more to add. There was one article that I remember reading from the Newsbank article archive that had someone discussing how he selectst the models.  It says something like we start with our six contract girls, then we add about 10 girls who are considered the hottest in the world, then we add 10 iconic images of fashion and that about does it.  I have thumbed through about 100 articles and I am having trouble searching for it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have any category suggestions for this list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Make a Victoria's Secret category? --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 21:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Cool idea for a list, but I see alot of problems with the list at the moment.


 * I don't think presenting the date numerically is a appropriate here.
 * Changed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake" I don't think the slash should be there. An "and" would be more appropriate. Drewcifer (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no seperation between the lead and the bulk of the article. Additionally, per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the main points of the article but not add information not found in the article/list itself.  So for instance the stuff about the dressing rooms might not be appropriate here.
 * I was looking for filler. I could not find the article that I wanted as explained above.  I will remove the dressing room stuff.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some external links would be helpful.
 * I added the Victoria's Secret website. Is there any other external link you think would be appropriate?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't start lists with just blindly repeating and bolding the list's title. Take a look at some more recent FLs for some example.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Starting a list as "This is a list of" should also be avoided. Again, take a look at some recently promoted FLs for some good examples. Drewcifer (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it O.K. now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, just wikilink Victoria's Secret. Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the column headers should be pluralized. Dates, Models, Locations.
 * O.K.
 * Why so many references? Do we really need four sources telling us that Heidi Klum was at an event?  Try to limit it to one citation per model.
 * How hung up are you on this. I am looking at this list and thinking, we don't really have any one reliable source.  Maybe we should throw everything out there that we have.  Maybe if I just alphabetized the lists that would be helpful.  We are really just going by a bunch of newpaper publicity and IMDB.  It is not like we have any one great source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just found a way to minimize the refs while retaining them. I just created another column.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better; smart thinking. However the column header should be capitalized.  Also the entire column should be centered.  It's also showing up fairly wide on my screen, wider than it needs to be.  I'd recommend forcing it to 2 refs per line by adding a line break after every two.  Take a look at List of Nine Inch Nails tours for an example of what I mean.  I also think it's unnecessary to have that column sortable. Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph has alot of very short, choppy sentences, which don't flow very well.
 * I have expandeded. Let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is "performed" the right verb here? Does a model perform in a fashion show?  I'm not really sure...Drewcifer (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think ""performed in is correct. It previously just said "performed".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is the table sortable? First column sort by date, ok so that's how the table starts out, chronologically.  Second column, sortable alphabetically by the first letter of the venue.  How is this helpful at all?  In case someone wants to see which models performed in a fashion show at places beginning with "P"?  Besides, the locations are all clumped together anyways, it's not like the show every came back to a certain place after a couple years.  Third column, sortable alphabetically by the first letter of the first name of the model mentioned first.  The order of the models presented seems somewhat arbitrary, so that's not that useful, especially the girl's first name.   Fourth column, sortable by reference number?  Again, not helpful.  So I'm left wondering what the sort function is there to accomplish. Drewcifer (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * unsorted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * IMDB is not considered a reliable source.
 * I tried to do this using newspapers and other publicity surrounding the events. There was no way to get complete lists.  They are not published anywhere. Except for 2002, I would not have been able to complete the lists.  I would argue that for certain type of information, IMDB is a WP:RS.  Whereas, its biographical information can not be counted upon, I think its cast and crew information is reliable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Content on IMDB is often user-generated, and we have no way of knowing what has been added by users and what has been added by staff. Therefore, I see no scenario where IMDB could be considered reliable. Drewcifer (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have contributed to cast and crew because my cousin played 2nd trumpet in the movie Ray. Basically, for cast and crew you submit information and then they review it before posting it online. It takes several weeks for them to confirm cast and crew additions.  I think cast and crew is pretty reliable.  Bio stuff cannot be confirmed so it is not reliable from them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have my own page on IMDB, so I know how it works. Whether it seems "reliable" or not isn't the point; it must pass WP:RS, a test of how Wikipedia defines reliable.  IMDB fails that test, and so it has been deemed unreliable in the past.  If you disagree, feel free to bring up the topic at WP:RS's talk page, but I assure you this has come up before. Drewcifer (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blogs and user generated content have been put on a new level, AFAIK. I believe the current standard is to evaluate the information being sourced in concert with the source.  Where as IMDB is not reliable for biographical tidbits, I believe it is considered reliable for cast and crew.  We are suppose to look at the information (in this case a cast of a televised fashion show) and ask do we consider this source to be reliable for the information attributed to it.  I have never had significant issues with IMDB for cast and crew.  For example, on my Tyrone Wheatley FA, which passed right when this standard changed, we had to determine if we considered pro-football reference a reliable source for certain types of statistics.  It passed when people at the FAC said they believed for that type of information that source was reliable.  A blanket statement that IMDB can not be relied upon is no longer the way I believe this is suppose to be considered.  I believe we are suppose to say. O.K. We have 8 or 10 models that we know were in the show based on other sources.  Do we believe the additional 15 or so on IMDB were also in the show.  I think that is the current standard.  Since we are augmenting the IMDB list with several reliable sources, I think we are good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, and I believe this is backed up by WP:RS, any content that has the potential to be user-generated cannot be considered reliable. Actor and crew lists are something that can and often are user-generated.  Additionally, we consider a source reliable based on whether it fact-checks and cites its sources.  In both cases, it is a clear no.  From personal experience, I have updated and added to my own IMDB page and others', and have found it inconsistent at best.  Like I said, you're welcome to bring this up at WP:RS for adjustment of the policy if you think it needs to be changed, but that is a discussion beyond the scope of this single FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy has changed. See Talk:Tyrone_Wheatley. Tyrone Wheatley passed with several facts from a source that does not have a fact checking or citation system.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence here that policy has changed. I took a look at the article's FAC, and it looks like the reliability concerns were addressed by the SI quote.  As current policy goes, reliability can be transferable: if one reliable source uses another source for information, that second source is considered reliable, since the first source has a reputation for fact-checking, and therefore would know that the second source is in fact reliable enough for them to depend on.  This is what the SI quote did.  So based on just this example, policy has not change at all.  To my knowledge IMDB does not pass a similar test to the pro-football stats website mentioned in the other FAC. Drewcifer (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Initial feedback from WP:RS is that staff actually makes the first pass at inputing cast and crew and users make amendments. This has been my experience.  I have not found incorrect information, just omitted information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think WP:RS is the more appropriate space for this discussion, so I'll move it there. For the meantime, however, I'll stick with my oppose based on this point and the others I've made, until we have a resolution at WP:RS or I'm just shown to be completely in the minority. Drewcifer (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes TVacres.com reliable?
 * I have exhausted my resources for that year. The choice is a list of six models for 1999 or the list of 21 that resulted from this edit based on the source in question.  The list is believably reliable.  The first six I would say are about a 9.5 on a certainty scale to have been models for the event.  The additional 15 are about sixes on the reliability scale. I chose to add believable information.  I don't think the list would be improved by omitting it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Same as above: whether you think it is "believably reliable" or not isn't the point, it must pass WP:RS. I'm not saying it doesn't necessarily pass WP:RS (like I'm saying IMDB doesn't), I'm just asking you to prove that it does. Drewcifer (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in the table it might be worthwhile to point out which models are the Angels. Like italicize their names or something.
 * This is not an article about the Angels. The Angels do not have an article and there is no good historical account of who the Angels are at any given time.  It would add confusion to a list already slightly deficient for incompleteness, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair-enough, just a suggestion. Drewcifer (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have found a resource for Angels historical info, but I don't think it is a very good WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "is a partial listing" why isn't it complete?
 * Prior to it being a nationally televised event records are kind of sketchy. In the television ERA (2001-present) we can correct for the sketchiness of the records by using IMDB.  Otherwise in most years you will only find out about the Angels and a few other favorites who are listed in newspaper articles about the event each year.  Prior to the internet era, it was not much more than a local fashion event.  Unless the company avails an official list, we will never be able to figure out who all the models were.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, having a difficult time finding information isn't an excuse for the list to be incomplete. If that information is completely lost for all of history (which I doubt), then I would argue that this list could never be complete enough to satisfy the FL criteria.  But I'm confident this information is somewhere.  If prior to the internet era it was a local fashion show, then local newspapers would probably have some info.  Maybe old Victoria's Secret catalogs might have something.  Saying "I can't find it on the internet" isn't a good excuse, in my opinion. Drewcifer (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You may not have noticed, but I am using local newspapers for the pre-internet era. Basically Newsday and New York Post provide the little information that we have.  I believe executives at the company do have the information, but it is not available in PD, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be a line break in the middle of a date. Add a    for any spaces in the dates. Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is using a template for the dates (for sortability). This is not possible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Well that leads me to something else that bothers me:
 * Also, what is the relevance of the specific dates? Since the focus of the list is the models, why do we care that a show was on December 8, 2008?  And why do we care that is was actually aired a week or two later?  I think the only relevant chronological data is the year, since there's only one show every year and the month and day seem to be pretty arbitrary, or at least inconsistent from year to year. Drewcifer (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two types of viewers of the event. There are live viewers and television viewers. We should provide them with dates that the event occurred  I think having dates is far better than for example VS Fashion Show #7.  Also, in this case, we have an event that has trended from a random date, to Valentine's Day, to the Cannes Film Festival to the Christmas Holidays.  The date of the event is important.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't have time to review everything, but I did notice some minor issues — Chris!  c t 00:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "November 14, 2002(aired)" and all the other one should have a space between the date and the parenthesis
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All ref name should be converted to lower case even though the website shows the title in capital letters
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If possible, it should have an image
 * How about 5?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 is a bit excessive, I think.— Chris!  c t 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are six current Angels with pics on their bios. I was going to add a sixth just to be fair.  I think all the Angels should be treated equally.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I'm concerned about the article itself, since it states that This is a partial listing, lists, mainly about related subjects as such, need to be complete.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it is complete from 2001-2007. 2001 was the first national televeision broadcast. I have explained this issue above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * COMPLETED 2008 with http://www.fashionologie.com/2509477.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, I guess its suitable. I just don't like the size of the lead. It needs to be expanded to say a little bit more about the history of the competition and more about the models.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   04:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that enough?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now it states more about the history of the event and where it has been held versus the models themselves (which is what the list is supposed to be about). I also recommend reformatting the way the models are listed in the table, maybe bulleted from would work better.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   15:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have alphabetized the names. I also created Template:2000-2009VSFashion Show and Template:1995-1999VSFashion Show. When you say bulleted form are you talking about the way they appear in these templates?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there examles of bulleted featured lists?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When I said bulleted list, I mean that within the tables the contestants were listed in bullets, or maybe separated with the following symbol found in the toolbox, •-- ₮ RU  C Ө   22:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is simple to do. I could just copy it from the templates above. However, I don't recall seeing featured lists that have used that technique.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or get someone else's input about it, because its a rare formatting. Also, expand the lead more about the models.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   00:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's rarity is why I am sort of hesitant. I'll watch for further feedback on the issue.  I think now that they are alphabetized, the list are easier to use than when you first looked at them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see what comes about on that issues. For now, the lead still needs work.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   01:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Help request After double checking the 2008 refs, I noticed that 34 of the 35 models are sourced and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is not properly sourced. I have found the following unconventional sources.  Please advise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mWMq5ovAso (If you don't want to torture yourself with 5 minutes of devilish beauty you should skip to the 4 minute mark and look for number 9); Also at http://www.newsgab.com/forum/celebrity-pictures/63157-rosie-huntington-whiteley-victorias-secret-fashion-show.html; http://www.gunaxin.com/victorias-secret-fashion-show-models-power-ranking-2008/4850; or http://www.freewebs.com/rosiehuntingtonfans/index.htm.  They are unconventional because they would not be traditional WP:RS for text, but for video and photo they are pretty much uncontestable.  Can I use any of these and hope for FL?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems
 * 1) The page name doesn't conform with WP:Naming Conventions because "Fashion Show" shouldn't have first capital letters.
 * According to Naming_Conventions, Victoria's Secret Fashion Show is a proper name. I.E., it is the title of an annual event.  "Victoria's Secret fashion" shows might be random shows held throughout the country, but the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show is the name of an event.  The proper correction is to put it in in italics within the text of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know it that this was the name of the fashion show. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) The current list is more about List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Shows than about List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models. You should have a section for every single model instead of repeating their name in the list. (Awaiting the debate)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure I understand what you want. I think you want a different article named List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models (alphabetical) and then the current article could be renamed List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models (by year).  However the article you are asking for would be redundant with List of Victoria's Secret fashion models.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that the list is more focused toward the occurrence of the show than on the models of the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show. A more appropriate name would be List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Shows, because this is what the list is about. 70% of the prose is about the show itself than the models. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not have a problem with that page move. The problem is that it does not really summarize the shows very well.  It would need things like musical acts and such to be featured caliber under that title.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is more toward the fashion shows. So either you keep the current name and reorganize it to focus on models (a lot of work) or move it to the other name and expand it to include the things that you mentioned before.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Diaa somewhat, as I think the focus of the list is a little off right now. It's formatted and presented as if it's about the shows (not the models), but there isn't really enough data on a per-show basis, just date, location, and models.  If it was meant to be about the shows themselves, I would expect more data like network it aired on, ratings, maybe the individual lines of lingerie they were advertising that year, maybe a prief prose-based rundown of the whole event, etc.  Maybe not all that or even those things specifically, but something a little bit more in depth.  As it is, the list is neither about the models or the events, it's really just a wierd hyrbid that accomplishes neither.  This somewhat goes along with my comment about about italicizing the names of the angels, though this suggestions woul push things in the opposite direction.  Either way would be fine with me, but right now the list is straddling the fence. Drewcifer (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are sort of two approaches one could take to adding model information.
 * One could associate each model with a country like at List of Victoria's Secret fashion models and talk about the number of models from each country in given years.
 * One could emphasize which models debuted in given years with text like "2007 marked the debut of Marisa Miller."
 * I don't know but the prose still doesn't say much about the models themselves, it just states which year they were featured in. I recommend renaming the list to an events list or expand it with a prose on the models themselves.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   00:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Because of the ongoing debate over the nature and scope of this article, I will remain neutral. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources
 * Why is IMDb used?
 * It is the only source of seemingly complete model lists for 2001-2007.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes the following sources reliable:
 * http://www.popcrunch.com/victorias-secret-angels-hollywood-walk-of-fame/#more-8140?
 * The source is verifyable as it is a picture of 8 identifyable people. Unless you are contesting that the image was photoshopped it is reliable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.tvacres.com/admascots_angels.htm? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I admit I have not read all of the above. But I have to oppose this for a few reasons: Rambo's Revenge (talk)  19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 25: fashionologie.com says "fashionologie is the musings of a twenty-something American girl" - I'm pretty sure it's just a (well-presented?) blog.
 * The source is verifyable as it is a set of pictures of the women in the show. Unless you are contesting that the images were photoshopped it is reliable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Refs 35, 41, 45, 48 ,49: IMDb is not a reliable source. I appreciate this information may be difficult to find elsewhere, but it doesn't make the source any more reliable.
 * Discussion is ongoing about IMDb at WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Shows in the 1990s were held in the days preceding Valentine's Day" - 1995 was in August!
 * Well after the first one. I'll change the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "and almost had Seymour make an appearance at the New York Stock Exchange" - relevent?
 * Everyone was clamoring for news about the models. There is not much news.  Most stories are puff pieces.
 * Where is the rest of 1998: Ref 6 states "the luscious Victoria's Secret girls", plural so I guess it wasn't just Seymour.
 * Publicity for that year was low, and I am unable to find any listing. Help appreciated.  This was the last year before it went to the internet.  My guess is someone screwed up the publicity so bad that they turned it over to someone new who put it on the internet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Prose needs sharpening: e.g. "In 1999 and 2000,[9][10] the show was broadcast live on the internet, but the 2000 show was moved for a year from the usual Febraury event at the Plaza to a May event in concert with the Cannes Film Festival in South France.[11][12]"
 * "but" indicates some sort of affect of the move with the internet so it is probably the wrong word.
 * "2000 show was moved for a year from the usual Febraury event", I guess the show wasn't moved from the event, as I guess the event didn't go on without the show - reword.
 * "moved for a year from the usual Febraury event at the Plaza" - sounds like it was the first year away from the Plaza but 1999 wasn't in the Plaza either.
 * Reference 52 is explicitly used after the location, which suggests the other year locations are not cited. Whereas ref 6 for 1998 only cites the date/location (not models) but is in a different place - please be consistent with your style.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "supermodels of the day" - not a very encyclopedic term
 * "broadcast on network television", what network?
 * I added the network for the first year.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Was the 2001 show televised live then?
 * No. I have corrected the list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently 1999 was a "record for any Webcast" - worth a mention surely.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.