Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection)/archive1

Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection)

Featured article candidates/Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection)/archive1

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the disastrous loss of the entire Taxi Driver collection to, er, negligence, McQueen was still uncertain about launching his own label. After some dithering, he gathered up every odd and end he'd created since then and put them together in the primal scream that was Nihilism. Not yet capable of the sweeping narratives that would characterise his later career, and on a budget of approximately zero, he went for pure shock tactics. Models smeared in filth and fake blood stalked down the runway, wrapped in cling film, breasts and genitals flashing. The audience was struck dumb and even photographers quit snapping, aghast at the sight. Reviews were mixed, with many accusing McQueen of misogyny while others recognized the burgeoning talent beneath the gore. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Hi ♠PMC♠, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

The logo is in public domain per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Threshold_of_originality. The other two images are licensed under CC BY 2.0 and CC BY-SA 2.0. All images have captions and alt texts. They are relevant to the article and placed at appropriate locations. The description on the wiki commons page of "File:Nihilism from Alexander McQueen Savage Beauty.jpg" should be updated: it listed 5 items but the image is a cropped version that only shows one item. I'm confused since the wiki commons description says "Savage Beauty exhibition, 2011" but our caption says "2015 staging". The file was uploaded in 2011 so that date is probably correct. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlsph7, thanks for the image review! I've fixed the description for the Nihilism jacket and the caption. I think I'm just so used to images being from the 2015 staging that I forgot to double check. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes, that takes care of all the concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

I looked through the prose and sources during the GAN review. I think a secondary source review is in order for FAC, but I can definitely Support on prose here; this is an extremely solid and thorough article. I noticed a couple cites were out of order, so I went ahead and fixed those. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

As always, suggestions not demands, etc. etc.

Only one clothing-related image is annoyingly little. Some of your other McQueen FAs have images illustrating inspirations or resemblances; is that not possible here? Or you could argue for fair use for an image from the show, like the one on Watt 2012 p. 60. Would really help people like myself.
- Yeah, the lack of images for early McQueen is very frustrating. It's early enough that a lot of it isn't uploaded online, and what is is so rare that people aren't willing to free license it. (Or they've abandoned whatever Flickr account and aren't responding to comments). I think you're right in saying a fair use runway one could be justified, I've added one from Fairer's book.
"Quest for Fire (1981), famous 18th century" shouldn't there be a "the" before famous?
- There should and now there is :)
"There was a degree of primitivism" slightly unfocused phrasing, maybe "it featured" or similar?
- Added
When you say "beetle blood", does it literally mean the blood of beetles? How many beetles do you need to squish to get a usable amount of blood? Also, link shellac?
- Huh! You know, I think that must have been a typo in the original book that I just blindly replicated without really thinking about it. I've removed the whole quote rather than worry about it, and wound up reorganizing the whole section a little because it was getting on my nerves.
The fourth paragraph of "Runway show" feels like it belongs in the previous subsection, and indeed duplicates some content from its last paragraph.
- It is a little repetitive, but the distinction is in the clothing in itself vs in the way the models were presented on the runway. I've made some changes that hopefully make it more distinct:
  - revised the opening to remove the duplicative wording
  - moved the cling film sentence and the androgynous model sentences into this para to beef it up a little
  - reordered the paragraph to flow with the opening sentence, so we move from the wet t-shirt effect (thin fabric) to the revealing silhouettes, which hopefully makes the logic clearer
"Many models were wrapped in cling film because McQueen and Niland realised at the last minute that there was no budget to purchase underwear for them." How does cling film ... help?
- Ahahaha, I wondered about that myself. It's hard to see in the videos of the runway show, and they don't go into more detail in that source, so I'm guessing here, but I think... picture wrapping something a bunch of times, untidily so the plastic crinkles up a bit. It doesn't become completely opaque, but it obscures what's underneath. They weren't hugely worried about being modest.
"She wrote: "Themes of anxiety and distress continue to be combined with a latent sexuality in his work."" little confused about the tenses
- Arnold was writing in 1999 when McQueen was still active, so for her it was the present tense. I've expanded a bit though because I think I wasn't as clear about her point as I could have been
"Press coverage continued to be mostly appalled" for how long? did it ever stop?
- Oop, this was intended as a continuation of the prev sentence about the next few collections. I've combined the sentences; they shared a ref anyway.
  McQueen's relationship with the press was always messy. For his early career, reviews almost always boiled down to something like "he's talented, but he should stop being so fucked-up". That persisted until roughly Joan, where he got into performance art and the press started declaring that he'd ~matured~. The "talented but fucked-up" response was no longer the default, but it resurfaced whenever he got up to Antics™, which was pretty often throughout the rest of his career, up to and including his last collection in life.

Very tight article. Nice work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, AirshipJungleman29, I think I've finally addressed everything. Let me know if you have further thoughts. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

I am uncertain about this part from the lead, (in March 1993 London). I have not seen the month and year used as a descriptor before, and while I understand it makes the prose more concise, it does strike me as a bit odd. It could just be me though.
- Not just you at all, it's a typo that snuck through GA. Good catch :)
When referencing the locusts in the lead, I think it would be best to clarify that they were dead, just to specify to readers who may be uncertain if they were even real in the first place or somehow were alive.
- Done
I think a cellophane link would be helpful, especially since other materials, such as chiffon, latex, and plastic wrap, are linked.
- Also done
Why is The 120 Days of Sodom described as "famous" while Quest for Fire and National Geographic are not? I would understand the inclusion if there was a focus on how well-known The 120 Days of Sodom is, but that does not appear to be the case so in my opinion, it sticks out as unnecessary and could be removed without losing any meaning.
- Hmm fair enough, removed
In the "Collection" subsection, latex is linked twice.
- Oop, yes
There is a bit of a tense issue in the "Production details" subsection for the parts on Niland. There is an instance of the present tense with "recalls" and it then shifts to the past tense with "described". Most of the prose is in past tense so this could have just been a typo or something missed during writing and revision.
- I somehow manage to do this at least once per article, thanks for catching it.
I am guessing that this information is not available, but do we know why the show started 30 minutes late?
- It doesn't say in this case

I hope that these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times, but I highly doubt that I will find anything further. Wonderful work as always, and good luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aoba47, thanks as always for your comments and compliments! I've made the changes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]