Talk:What a Merry-Go-Round/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 04:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 00:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this review. Comments to follow. If you have the time/inclination, I have a few GANs up for review now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
General comments
[edit]- Lead is a bit short; could use a little expansion to summarise more of the "Concept and collection", "Runway show", "Reception", "Analysis", and "Legacy" sections.
- Embiggened
- Lead image caption: "Look 67 as presented on the runway" I thought there were only 62 looks?
- Nope - article says 62 in the main phase with at least 6 in the finale. This one's from the finale.
- "McQueen explicitly drew on fear of clowns" some sort of article seems needed before "fear"?
- Oop, yes
- "Gainsbury & Whiting" I assume this is a company?
- Yes, but not notable, so no redlink
- I feel that occasionally the prose gets too bullet-pointy: second paragraph of "Concept and collection", second paragraph of "Production details". For GA, it fulfils "clear and concise" very well, but if you're planning to take this to FAC some smoothening would be nice.
- I see what you mean. I've given it a once-over and I'm much happier with the flow of the entire C&C section. Production details is a little more difficult to do much with, but I've given at least the first paragraph a go.
- "The floor was painted in a spiral of grey and blue. Lighting was dim." this I think goes too far on the brevity.
- Revised also
- The second paragraph of "Analysis" could use clarification that this is all analysis from Thomas.
- I don't know, I think opening with "Thomas also thought" and not mentioning anyone else's name makes it reasonably clear
- image caption: "a silver dress in the finale is a reference to this painting" surely it should be "was"?
- I swear I was told at some point (don't make me look it up) to use present tense for this kind of thing, since "was" implies that it stopped being a reference
- "Merry-Go-Round marked the first appearance of the skull motif that is now a signature of the brand" would this be look 48, 62, or something else?
- All of them; skulls as a general aesthetic flourish kind of became the brand's thing at retail. Still is, if you go look at their accessories especially it's skull this, skull that.
Source spotcheck
[edit]Random selection of sources checked; all good. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29, thanks very muchly for the review, I've made changes and responded above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2024 (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.