Talk:Gingham dress of Judy Garland

Gingham dress of Judy Garland has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 7, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

GA Review

Passed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:Gingham dress of Judy Garland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 01:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a review written for this within the next day or two. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changedforbetter, I've posted the review below. The prose reads really well, but I want to take a closer look at the WP:Text-source integrity. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien Hi there, thank you so much for posting your review! I wasn't expecting this nomination to get picked up so quickly. I'll begin working on and addressing each point within the next few days; please be advised that it could take me longer than the usual 7-day turnaround to complete the revisions due to real-world commitments, approximately three weeks at most. Changedforbetter (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien Hello, just letting you know that all points below have been addressed. Awaiting final verdict. Changedforbetter (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

Lead:

were styled to hide her womanly figure – This feels euphemistic.

I think I understand what you mean. Revised to "to make her appear younger and thinner on camera", which is what the filmmakers were ultimately trying to achieve.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and often paired with ruby slippers – "often" doesn't really work when describing the "complete outfit". Maybe this should be its own sentence.

Revised; moved to its own sentence.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History:

musical fantasy film adaptation of the book – MOS:SEAOFBLUE. It might be simpler just to say "film adaptation".

Revised.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He made approximately 8–10 different prototypes – Is "approximately" necessary if it provides a range?

"Approximately" removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garland had worn through all 10 dresses during production – Earlier in the paragraph it suggested that it's uncertain how many were made, but this seems to definitively state that there were ten.

Removed "10".--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the total was likely closer to 4–6 – The total made or the total worn out?

Total worn through, in this instance. Revised sentence to make this clearer.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Design and analysis:

"Noted" shouldn't be used to describe subjective opinions. This appears three times in the last paragraph of this section.

Fixed. All instances of "noted" removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The color blue has been noted to be symbolic – "Has been noted" is wordy. Either describe its symbolism directly or attribute it specifically to whoever is making this association.

Revised.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and impact:

In a review published by the Library of Congress, film critic Peter Keough reported – Do we know that it was published by the LoC, or do they just happen to be hosting a copy?

You are correct; the review is an excerpt from a book, that was simply being hosted by the Library of Congress website. Revised the source for accuracy.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy:

among various owners for several years & by various individuals over time – The reader already knows that time passed.

Revised.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the world's most valuable film memorable – I don't think "memorable" can be used in place of "memorabilia".

Typo. Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was Warner's dress sold in 1981 or in 2012? This is confusing, and it might help if it was in chronological order.

Revised for clarification. Warner obtained his dress during the 1970s, and re-sold it in 1981. It was again re-sold in 2012 and 2015.--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lecturer Matt Ripa unsuspectingly found the dress – "unsuspectingly" can be cut without changing the meaning

Leaving for now. I would argue that "unsuspectingly" helps readers understand that Ripa wasn't actively searching for the dress, and just happened to run into it unsuspectingly. Usually, when someone "finds" something, it's because they were looking for something to find.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In note 4, some context could be added stating explicitly that the Kardashian incident added to the discussion.

Revised.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you, but since there's so much info about it, we might consider putting the paragraphs about the Catholic University dress under their own level four heading.

I do not want to give readers the impression that the Catholic University controversy is as famous as the dress itself.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to these notes, I made a few minor copyedits.

Verifiable with no original research

The New York Post is generally unreliable and should not be used as a source.

Removed all uses of NYP.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article is written by a "contributor", which on Forbes means someone who is not part of Forbes staff. These are generally unreliable.

Removed usess of the Lynn Douglass source, and replaced where needed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus as to whether Biography.com is reliable. It might be a good idea to remove it.

Source removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and deemed an urban legend among staff and students, despite existing photographs of Hartke with the dress. – Comparing the existence of the photos to the urban legend status is WP:SYNTH, because it tries to create a new fact that isn't stated in either Solly (2022) or Zimmermann (2021). This is an interesting contradiction, but we need a source that explicitly describes this contradiction.

Okay, statement about the photos removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These don't matter for GA, but they're also worth pointing out:

There are less academic or journalistic sources and more "popular" sources. This is inevitable to some extent with certain subject matter, but it's always better to replace these with more serious sources when possible. HowStuffWorks, Mental Floss, and Nerdist in particular stand out as examples.
I notice that the sources are all archived, even the ones that don't need to be archived like Google Books, and all of them are set to "dead" so that the archive link comes first.
Ironically, one of the few sources not archived, Wickman (2013), actually is dead.

Updated and archived this source. I'll probably consider updating all sources should I ever become interested in nominating the article for FA.--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks:

Durn (2022): The university contacted the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, who authenticated the garment by comparing its unique characteristics to those of other verified Dorothy dresses, namely a hidden pocket. – Does the source support this? I see where it mentions the pocket, but not that it used it to authenticate the dress. I also don't see anything about the university contacting the Smithsonian.

These are supported by the Fieldstadt, Elisha (April 21, 2022) source; removed the Atlas source.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

McKean (2013): He made approximately 8–10 different prototypes of the dress before settling on its final checked design, which resembled the outfit Baum described in his novel – It doesn't support this besides comparing it to the novel.

This statement is supported by the DURN source, which states "The final dress was very simple, almost exactly the garment “with checks of white and blue” described in L. Frank Baum’s 1900 book".--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Puente (2015): After completing The Wizard of Oz, MGM either recycled most of Dorothy's dresses or re-used them in subsequent films – My understanding of this is that reusing them in subsequent films was the recycling, not that they were two different fates of the dresses.

Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Velasco (2021): Prior to 1939, the textile had mostly been appreciated by the working class for its comfort, durability, and affordability – This source doesn't really support this.

Revised paragraph and re-ordered sources for accuracy.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reid (2021): It was copied and sold by retail chains and department stores, with imitations appearing in fashion magazines and sewing patterns from the period is close paraphrasing of Dorothy Gale's dress was copied and sold by retail chains and department stores in America after the film's release in 1939. Imitations can also be seen in fashion magazines and sewing patterns of the period. Also, is Reid really the editor of the Luminaries?

Revised: "The design was replicated and sold by several department stores, with sewing patterns being inserted into fashion magazines from the period". And yes, according to the site's "About" page, Alison Jane Reid is its "founder and editor". I've updated the source.--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The spot checks brought up a few issues. It may be worth checking over the sourcing to make sure that the sources generally correspond to the statements they're supposed to support.

Broad in its coverage

History, design, and cultural significance are all covered.

Neutral

No ideas are given undue weight. The article does not use subjective language.

Stable

No recent disputes. It will likely need an update in the near future as current events relating to the recently discovered dress are resolved, but this shouldn't significantly affect the current information in the article.

Illustrated

All of the images are public domain and have relevant captions.

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.