Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Illusion of Kate Moss/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 March 2023 [1].

Illusion of Kate Moss

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the mid 2000s, English supermodel Kate Moss had a small drug scandal, which lost her a ton of sponsorships and saw the press gleefully smearing her as "Cocaine Kate". Her friend Alexander McQueen remained steadfast, and for his Autumn/Winter 2006 show The Widows of Culloden, conceived an art piece featuring Moss to show his support for her. The unnamed piece used an adapted theatrical technique, Pepper's ghost, to project a ghostly image of Moss at life size onstage at the end of the Widows runway show, leading to audience tears and a rowdy standing ovation. The piece was featured at both stagings of the retrospective exhibit Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty, and has garnered significant critical analysis as an art piece in its own right. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV, a gentle reminder. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had this article open all day! I just got side tracked reading about the FBI. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understandable :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moss retired from runway modelling in 2004, focusing on advertising contracts and other ventures. Recommend "to focus".
  • Done
  • I wonder if the description of the illusion shouldn't be in the first paragraph of #Illusion, and then explained. To that end, why not explain Pepper's ghost in the prose?
  • I've put a very trimmed explanation in the prose. I moved the sentence about serpentine dance later down and have collapsed the first two paragraphs into one. I think they logically lead into each other, so I would prefer not to reverse the order.
  • [...] dress created by Sarah Burton [...] Who?
  • oops, relic from the split. Linked & given context
  • Why is paragraph 2 of #Reception and legacy placed before paragraph 3?
  • Overall legacy before drilling down to one specific element of legacy, plus para 4 is also about the museum exhibit so I'd have to move that up too, and then I have two specific paragraphs before one broad paragraph
  • [...] whereas the illusion functioned as an aesthetic horror that depended on the audience's emotions. I cannot parse this sentence past "that depended". Is that just academic gobbledygook?
  • lol, it is a little bit that. Tweaked a little to be more explanatory - how's that?
Much better. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responses noted above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Supporting. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I don't think we ordinarily do archiving for Flickr images on Commons, I think the review bot tag with the original URL is taken to be sufficient. But I've done the tumblr one.
  • Fair enough. I am probably overly cautious when it comes to this kind of thing. It is best to archive the Tumblr one, but I think the Flickr one is likely safer and would not have link rot or death. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (had been embroiled in a scandal at the time of the Widows show) in the lead, shouldn't it specify that it was a drug scandal? The current wording seems to skirt around the issue, and it may be unnecessarily vague or confusing for readers who look at the lead first without the context provided by the rest of the article.
  • Tweaked
  • This is more of a clarification question than a question. Would it be beneficial to provide some additional context to Moss's alleged drug use? It may be more fitting for the Kate Moss article, but I think it would help unfamiliar readers to add that this controversy and the subsequent fallout was from photos of her alleged drug use. It also probably did not help that she was and still is one of the models most connected with the heroin chic style. I am not saying this would need a lot more prose, but it just seems like one sentence is not enough context.
  • I reworded it to say what the scandal came from, not sure if you need more detail than that?
  • Looks good to me. Thank you clarifying this point. This is probably all that context that is needed as further information would likely be best reserved for the Moss article and give it undue weight here. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (By 2006, she had not walked in a fashion show in years.) I would specify the amount of years as I'd imagine there would be a more exact figure out there for this kind of information.
  • I'm not sure what source my original wording came from, but from some further checking, her absence from the runway turned out to have nothing to do with the scandal. She chose to retire from runway modelling in 2004, well before the drug thing. She was making fat bank from other things, especially advertising, so presumably she was shifting her focus. I've revised the article to reflect this.
  • Thank you for looking into this further. To piggyback on my previous suggestion and response, I think this section looks great. It touches on Moss enough to provide the context for this particularly event without getting waylaid by it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For instances like ("to show that she was more ethereal, bigger than the situation she was in.") and ("only Alexander McQueen could provide the astonishing feat of techno-magic that ended his show."), shouldn't the punctuation be on the outside of the quotation marks? I was only curious because neither instance are full-quoted sentences unlike later instances in the article.
  • Yeah, I never get this right lol
  • For Citation 28, I believe you should mark that it requires a subscription to view the full article.
  • It doesn't seem to ask for one from me
  • For this part (In 2014, Vanity Fair named it), I would include the name of the author in the prose to be consistent with the previous instances where the writer and publication are credited that way.
  • Done

I hope these comments are helpful so far. This is everything that I noticed after reading through the article once, and after everything has been addressed, I will do several, more thorough readings and add any comments if I notice anything further. I have done some minor edits to the article, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with at all. Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, all done for now. Let me know what you think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Citation 49, I do not believe the title should be in all italics as it is the name of a YouTube video.
  • Fair enough. I personally would not use that the AV media template for a YouTube video and I generally use the more generic Web template to avoid this issue. However, this could just be a matter of personal preference. I still think it is an issue to have a title represented incorrectly in a citation, but I will leave that kind of thing up to the source reviewer. This would not hold back my review as I am primarily focused on the prose. If the information is represented incorrectly and cannot be changed due to the template, I'd think the answer would be to use a different template rather than leave an error. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am still in the middle of reading the article. I should be done by the end of tomorrow. This is the only thing I have really noticed. I had some very minor edits. It is nothing major, but I just wanted to be transparent on this page. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Peppers_Ghost.jpg is tagged as lacking author information
  • File:Loie_Fuller.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • Photographer Frederick Glasier exhibited his photos & made prints for sale in his own studio throughout the early 1900s, see [2]. The print is signed 1902, indicating it was printed for sale at that time. Per Commons, making copies available for sale to the public is considered publication, putting this well into PD. If we want to consider it as an unpublished work instead, Glasier died 1950, and PD for unpublished works with known authors is 1953, so we're also into PD by that metric. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tkbrett

[edit]

Comments inbound. Tkbrett (✉) 17:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I will get this done tonight. Tkbrett (✉) 20:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about this subject or fashion in general, but I think on the whole it reads really well and none of it went over my head.

A few small things: I'm unsure on the first bit of the lead, since it seems "Illusion of Kate Moss" could be a descriptive title, in which case it would not be emboldened. (I'm thinking about WP:BENOTBOLD here, which isn't MOS, but an essay). Also, since there is no official title, I think "The illusion of Kate Moss is an art piece ..." is perhaps better written as "An illusion of Kate Moss was an art piece ..." What do you think?

No, I think those still get bolded - see Checkers speech or Symphony No. 2 (Mahler). Per WP:AVOIDBOLD, you only ditch the bold when it's awkward to use it in a lead sentence. It also gets the "the" as it's realistically the only such illusion (both Checkers and Symphony have the "the" too, despite being descriptive titles). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. In the past I was never too certain on the bolding bit, but I think you are correct. Also, The should be fine then. Tkbrett (✉) 12:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, watch out for a few uses of "noted" in the Gothic tropes subsection (MOS:EDITORIAL). Tkbrett (✉) 02:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one since there were two in a paragraph. However my usage here isn't off MOS; I'm using "noted" in the neutral sense of "so-and-so wrote xyz" rather than POV phrasing "it should be noted that xyz". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I pointed at the wrong one above. It should have been MOS:SAID, which lists "noted" as being better served by a more neutral word. Tkbrett (✉) 12:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think my usage of it is an issue, I've used "X noted" in multiple previous FAs as a variation of "X said" or "X described". MOS:SAID doesn't prohibit the usage, it just says care should be taken. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the issue is that by using noted, it reads like Cartner-Morley is correct in asserting the Shakespeare connection, when this is instead her opinion. I think suggested or commented are less loaded. Tkbrett (✉) 13:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to add a ref that McQueen described it as Macbeth-influenced, and that Cartner-Morley is arguing the Banquo connection. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that looks good.

As I mentioned above, I think the article conveys the subject nicely to a reader entirely ignorant of fashion. Happy to offer my support. Tkbrett (✉) 01:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Excellent – this was one of the more intriguing aspects in your last FAC, so I'm delighted to see a bit more background on it.

Illusion
Gothic tropes
  • "English lecturer Catherine Spooner": this looks like we're describing her nationality, rather than specialism. Maybe "the professor of literature Catherine Spooner"? (I've also added this to The Widows of Culloden article, where she is just referred to as "Spooner" on her first mention.

That's it. Very little from me (although I have tweaked the quote marks per WP:LQ in these edits). Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it! I was disappointed not to be able to carve off another article from Widows, I would've liked to get a little FT :P Alas. The Spooner thing in the Widows article is probably a relic from splitting this one; thanks for catching it. I've made both of your suggested changes, and as always thanks for catching me on LQ and BrEng, lol. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

Great to see this here, on a growing series that has certainly widened my horizons. One thing, as both designer and model are from the UK, should the article br in BRENG. Not so much the spelling and adding a whole load of "u"'s, but the false title thing, eg "a short film of the English model Kate Moss".

Will be away for bit will revisit on return. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • maybe its because of the alliteration, but the lead opening sentance isn't really telling what the "thing" is - "performance projected". what? Live Performance art staged using projectors? Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked the lead a bit - how's that? (As a side note, I readded "actually" - sorry, I know you removed it, but I think it reads better with it). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, have read it all, and made trivil edits which matter to me not if reverted. Last concern, is the official title the "Illusion of Kate Moss"? If so why is it not "Illusion of Kate Moss" or Illusion of Kate Moss (not sure hat MOS recommends for performance art, but as a title it should have one or the other.
    Anyway, none of these are vexing...although "actually" is my most hated word...may be "in fact". Not withstanding,
  • Support. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I'll actually be sure to sneak it into all my future FACs just for you ;) As for the title formatting, there is no official title as far as I can tell. "Illusion of Kate Moss" is a descriptive title, so per MOS:NEITHER, it gets a sad naked title with no italics and no quotation marks. Cheers and thanks for your support! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I look forward to out future edit wars so :) Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recused (comment below) and TOC comments from ErnestKrause

[edit]

The source review ought to take about a day or two to complete. I'll be doing an indexed review of 1 randomly chosen citation per each 5 citations, and try to report in a day or two for the one or two dozen randomly chosen checks for the source review. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My TOC comments are going to somewhat limited to three or four items starting with the choice of title for this article:

(1) After doing a Google search on the keywords, then it appears that by a factor or 2 or 3 the preferred reference to this production is to call it the Kate Moss Hologram. The second favorite choice among Google keyword searches is Ghost of Kate Moss. I'm not sure that "Illusion" is the most recognizable form for this fashion art work by McQueen. It is consistent with your Widows article (which I supported), however, even within Wikipedia when I look it up under the article for Savage Beauty, the preference is again for "Hologram". (See comments above from Ceoil).

PMC,I agree with this actually, hence my confusion above about what the article was about. An illusion is an effect, a hologram is a thing. Ceoil (talk)
Addressing points 1 and 3 together: a common descriptor is not always the most correct title for an article. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". Referring to this effect as a "hologram" is factually incorrect, as the article explicitly states, so it would be improper as an article title. "Ghost" is also inappropriate as a descriptive title, as it implies we are referring to a literal manifestation of Kate Moss's spirit. "Illusion" is the most sensible, as it tells the reader that this is an illusory effect but does not falsely imply the technical wizardry of a hologram. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add to the lead: The illusion of Kate Moss (sometimes known as the Kate Moss Hologram is a.... Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll need to recuse from further participation in the source review for the article and related discussion here. Andrew Bolton calls this the Kate Moss hologram and Kate herself calls this a hologram. Nick Knight (McQueen's photograph) prefers to call it Pepper's Ghost of Kate Moss. Possibly Ceoil or another editor can take over the source review of this article as I am recused. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see why this would cause you to recuse from the entire review, but okay. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, the first paragraph of the lead already mentions that it is sometimes inaccurately called a hologram. It feels repetitive to have it mentioned twice within a few sentences. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see now. The article title is far from a deal breaker for me. Ceoil (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point two was really several points written as one paragraph. I'm going to split it up and address each one individually so I don't miss anything (and because I suspect you will have responses and it will be more organized that way). (2) Vami's comment about the organization of your TOC on the issue of where to place the Reception section appears to deserve some more comment.

Firstly, the last paragraph of the Analysis section contains some critique remarks, and it might look better if it were added to the Reception section instead of the Analysis section.

  • I don't think moving those would make sense. That paragraph discusses analysis of the illusion as a piece of technical work, which belongs under Analysis and not Reception, which focuses on "did we like it or not". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More extensively, I'm going to raise the issue of whether the TOC should separate the aesthetic reception of this fashion art work from the political reception of this work.

  • I'm honestly not sure what you mean when you say the "political reception of this work". There's the Spanish holo-protest, but that's about it politics-wise, and what I wrote is about all I could find sourcing for on that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with Kate Moss being part of the Heroin Chic movement of her time, and potentially there is more to be said about this, as well as McQueen possible participation in it. I seem to remember alot about Moss appearing waif-like and with heavy dark mascara with heavy dark eye make-up doing the heroin chic era. If you separate the history aspects of this fashion artwork from the aesthetics aspects of the work, then it might be useful to add one of the heroin chic image of Moss which were very well received for their aesthetic qualities at that time and highly imitated.

  • Heroin chic was an aesthetic popular in early 1990s fashion, and was long out of style by the time Widows premiered in 2005. I did not locate any content that discusses this illusion with reference to heroin chic, which makes sense to me as it's about 10–12 years too late. We don't have any free images of Moss from the heroin chic era, and I don't think it would be appropriate to use a non-free one given the lack of relevance to the article content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, Analysis section normally comes before Legacy sections generally in Wikipedia articles).

  • I've moved the second paragraph of Reception & Legacy to the end of Analysis, but I have left the Legacy paragraphs where they are, as some of the Analysis content depends on knowing the legacy. I think this is reasonable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(3) You mention the phrase "the illusion" as least one or two dozen times as your favorite way of referencing this fashion art work. Try to take my comments in stride and as constructive. I'm not sure that 'illusion' standing by itself goes far enough to denote that a hologram is not a flat, 2-D image of something, but is instead a 3-D rendering with sculptural qualities not in evidence in conventional images. Kate Moss Hologram (or Alexander McQueen's Kate Moss Hologram) seems to be the preferred reference in the press for this fashion art work.

(4) Source review upcoming in a day or two. I'll try to complete it right after the weekend. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Starting Source review:

(1) Randomly choosing Hyl, #3 footnote, from first five. There's not one image of Moss in that article about the 1990s, and she is barely mentioned in the article (mentioned twice in passing with other models). You use it with two other references in the main text and nowhere else. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, and? It verifies that she walked in La Poupée, which is all I'm using it for. Sources don't have to verify every fact in the sentence they follow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Randomly selecting #8 from the next five citations. The Evening Standard article appears to be using the scandal aspects to make the opposite point to what is covered in this Wikipedia article. They are stating that Moss continued to prosper and profit from the time the scandal broke in the press. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, and that came out after the scandal had died down. The point I'm getting at is that at the time of the show, she was emerging from a scandal that resulted in her getting publicly smeared and getting dropped from numerous contracts, which prompted McQueen to put her in his show. The fact that one of her companies made money that year - and frankly we don't know how, could be from investments or previous residuals coming in - does not negate the background that led to McQueen developing the illusion for her. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Randomly selection #11 from the next five citations. The Vogue article does confirm the 'love you' message but does not mention the Neptune colelction by name. Is this the best choice for a citation for this collection? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Randomly selecting #20 from the next five citations. The Mower article does mention Kate and the image but does not cover any of the production crew or staff in the first use of this cite. The second use of the cite refers to Mower's well written text about Moss. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Givhan article in footer #29 verifies your quote of her. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(6) Armstrong article footer #31 is blocked from view without registration. Not verified; is there an alternate link? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(7) Footer #39, Cordoba, blocks access to article based on cookie acceptance required. You use it as one of three cites; possibly to have an alternate. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not wanting to accept cookies is not part of the FA criteria for evaluating sources. That was the only English-language RS that I found about it, and I don't speak Spanish. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(8) Footer #41. Armstrong article confirms 'honoured in style'. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(9) Footer #47. Spooner confirms 'haunting' but not 'melancholy'. You link 'melancholy' without Spooner using it. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(10) Confirming Nick Knight interview with Moss towards the end of the citation list. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need to hear from you on these points raised from the cite review (I'm doing them now since I may be away for the next two days). ErnestKrause (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Spot checks not done.

  • Most books give publisher locations. But several don't. Would it be possible to standardise this, one way or the other?
  • Should all have them now.
  • There are four cases where you cite from chapters of books. Would it be possible to give the page ranges of these chapters?
  • Was able to get all four.
  • In Journals, three titles are in title case and one in sentence case. Could these be standardised.
  • Fixed.

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look, Gog, I'll finish up later today. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, all requested fixes are now in place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Illusion_of_Kate_Moss/archive1&oldid=1146292606"