Jump to content

Talk:The Man Who Knew Too Much (Alexander McQueen collection)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source dump

[edit]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 02:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Created by Premeditated Chaos (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 58 past nominations.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: New enough, long enough, hook fact is interesting and cited to Watt and Bethune. Earwig shows 9.1%, but everything highlighted is just the title of the collection. Good to go.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Man Who Knew Too Much (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 03:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Queen of Hearts (talk · contribs) 01:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will review this. charlotte 👸♥ 01:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Queen of Hearts, a gentle nudge, since it's been over a week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for the delay! I'll start this tomorrow (er, later today in UTC). charlotte 👸♥ 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. charlotte 👸♥ 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. charlotte 👸♥ 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Spotcheck, with numbers randomly generated from this permalink:
  • 2:
  • 26:
  • 31:
  • 35:
  • 38:
  • 42:
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). charlotte 👸♥ 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. charlotte 👸♥ 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). charlotte 👸♥ 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. charlotte 👸♥ 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. charlotte 👸♥ 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images either PD or properly licenced. charlotte 👸♥ 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. charlotte 👸♥ 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A miscellaneous comment that isn't in the criteria: Homer 2023 and Honigman 2021 aren't used in the bibliography; consider removing them or moving them to a further reading. charlotte 👸♥ 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. Pending spotcheck and a minor comment. charlotte 👸♥ 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QoH, thanks for the review. If you need any pages for the spot check, let me know, I can email whatever. I've removed Homer & Honigman; neither one had anything pointful to say. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Man_Who_Knew_Too_Much_(Alexander_McQueen_collection)&oldid=1269102764"