Talk:Illusion of Kate Moss

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• The Widows of Culloden
• Illusion of Kate Moss

)

• ... that the runway show for the Alexander McQueen collection The Widows of Culloden ended with an illusion of Kate Moss that brought the audience to tears? Sources: A Man of Darkness and Dreams, Vanity Fair; Alexander McQueen: Blood Beneath the Skin, p 300
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Symphyotrichum kentuckiense & Template:Did you know nominations/Wilhelmine Key
  • Comment:

Created by Premeditated Chaos (talk). Self-nominated at 05:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC).

•  Reviewing... Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - see comments
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Premeditated Chaos: Good article. However, i'm not seeing where in the sources you've provided that the illusion of Kate Moss brought the audience to tears. Could you explain? Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's right on page 300 in Blood & Tears. "Kerry Youmans remembers, soon after arriving at the venue, being asked by Lee whether he had seen the hologram. ‘When I said that I hadn’t, he told me to come and sit with him,’ he said. ‘We sat and watched the hologram and it was so moving because he was so moved by it. And during the show itself I saw members of the audience in tears.’— " (Realized after the fact that the Vanity Fair source was to confirm Youmans' status, not the tears bit, so ignore it. Shouldn't have put it in the DYK but that's what I get for wrangling 100+ sources across two articles) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Pinging Onegreatjoke ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

    @Premeditated Chaos: Alright. Though, the source does make the hook not completely correct. Saying that The audience was brought to tears makes it seem like everyone in the audience was tearing up, not some. You should say in the hook that some members of the audience teared up rather than the audience. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

    I think you're being overly picky about the wording. When someone says that "the audience" did X, I don't think there's an expectation that they verify that every single person watching the show did that thing or else it's an incorrect statement. It's understood to be a generalization. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

    I know i'm being picky but DYK is extremely picky with its hook wording sometimes so that's why i'm picky with this. I guess i'll approve though. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

    @Premeditated Chaos: Quick question: are we comfortable with repeating the claim in wikivoice? I mean, we're going off the recollection of McQueen's publicist, it's attributed inline in both the source and wiki article... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

    I don't have an issue with it, he was only McQueen's publicist at the time of the show, and if I recall correctly (on vacation and no access to my sources atm) he gave that description much later, after McQueen was dead anyway. (in other words - he wasn't working for him anymore and had no reason to exaggerate) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Illusion of Kate Moss/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 03:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• I must disclaim before starting my review that beyond two and a half seasons of Project Runway my knowledge of fashion is limited, but hopefully I can give this article a fair review and I am excited to learn! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 03:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Okay, I believe that is all. This was actually really fascinating; thanks for writing it! I will put it on hold for a week but I doubt we will need that much time seeing as this should be a quick fix. Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns fully so that I can know when to respond (I apologise in advance if it takes me a while). If you wish to respectfully disagree with any of my points please do so—I reckon we can work it out. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 04:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• All my concerns have been addressed and I am happy to pass this for GA status now! Great work on the massive new additions, and thanks for the fast responses and congrats on another fantastic article, 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 06:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio check

• Earwig says good to go. The only concern it gives me are with quotations that are properly attributed and usable per WP:COPYQUOTE.

Files

All images are relevant to the article and copyright-free:

• File:Illusion of Kate Moss from Widows of Culloden.gif (I think I see the text moving): good, valid fair use rationale;
• File:KateMoss.jpg: good, CC-BY-SA 2.0 on commons;
• File:Peppers Ghost.jpg: good, public domain;
• File:Loie Fuller.jpg: good, public domain.

Prose

• Should catwalk be wikilinked or is this not common practice for fashion-related articles?

• No idea about common practice lol but as "catwalk" redirects to "fashion show" I've linked "runway show" instead

• "By 2006, she had not walked in a fashion show in years." Do we know an exact date or year when she last walked?

• I could probably find one but it would take some digging and isn't (imo) super germane to the illusion

• Agreed!

• "and producers Gainsbury & Whiting." I presume this to be the name of a fashion duo, but the previous sentence mentions a post-production company and I was confused for a moment that Gainsbury & Whiting was the name of a production company. Also, the way it is phrased (despite the ampersand) kind of makes it look like it says Gainsbury and Whiting. Perhaps replace "producers" with "producing duo" or something similar?

• It's a production duo, yes. I've tweaked it to say that, but left them last in line as they were sort of the least involved

• "so the team ensured that was carried out for the V&A's version of the exhibit." This reads awkwardly to me, maybe an it is missing?

• reworded

• "transformed into a form of virtual reality" recommend linking virtual reality.

• done

• "be confined to an attic or asylum, but again McQueen subverts the expectation by" Is again necessary here?
• "she called the dresses persuasive in the way" Pretty sure dresses should not be plural here?

• Both this wording and the above "again" were relics from when this was part of The Widows of Culloden, now fixed

References

The references are good and support the article's content. Ref 52 (a YouTube video) is usable per the uploader being an RS source. Note: some of the refs had inconsistent date formats compared to the rest of the citations in the article so I added {{use dmy dates}} (which appears to be the preferred format) to the article to fix this.

• Ref 36 is missing a date.

• Fixed

• I notice that some books have full dates while others only have years; is there a reason for this otherwise I would recommend having these be consistent.

• No reason, it's just what came up when I threw the ISBN in. Since some precise dates aren't known, I'll trim to years.

I also noticed some duplicate refs here so I've fixed those, hopefully.

Other

• Recommend adding a short description.

• Done

All done, and hopefully before you've logged off for the day :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

As a side note (sorry) I copied some content in from the main Widows article just now and rejiggered the analysis section (sorry). But I think it ties itself together more neatly now, so that's a plus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Nice work! I read through your new additions and could not find anything of concern. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 06:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Red links

Just a note regarding the article's red links (which I'd previously removed in my editing - apologies for that, Premeditated Chaos and thanks for your explanation). I was just of the mindset that if the La Poupée show from 1997, Voss from 2001, and Neptune from 2006 didn't already have articles by now, are they / will they be notable enough to? And if they end up having an article, they could just be linked via this one in the future? I'm still very much learning about the editing process, in order to continue to improve :) Mmberney (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

In general, just because something doesn't have an article doesn't necessarily mean it's not notable, it just means no one has written about it yet. All eight of my Featured Articles, including this one and its parent article The Widows of Culloden (another McQueen collection) didn't have articles before I wrote them.

In the specific case of McQueen, all of his collections, even the boring ones like Neptune, have enough significant coverage for articles, pretty much by virtue of how many books have been written about his career alone, even disregarding any specific articles written about individual collections. It's just that fashion is a desperately under-covered topic area on Wikipedia and no one has gotten around to writing them yet. This section of the redlink guideline suggests that plausible redlinks ought to be left alone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll keep that in mind during future editing and article creating! Mmberney (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)