Jump to content

Talk:What a Merry-Go-Round

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Premeditated Chaos (talk | contribs) at 01:08, 17 December 2024 (→Source dump: -3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Source dump

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that What A Merry-Go-Round closed with evil clowns cavorting around a carousel? Source: Watt, Judith (2012). Alexander McQueen: The Life and the Legacy. New York City: Harper Design. p. 175–176. ISBN 978-1-84796-085-6. OCLC 892706946.
Created by Premeditated Chaos (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 56 past nominations.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Will review this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Article is new enough, long enough. It's well-sourced, neutral, BLP-compliant, copyvio-free and 'presentable'.
    Hook is cited by reliable source (to which I don't have access, but will AGF), short enough and interesting
    Image (in article, not part of the DYK) is correctly licensed (on Commons)
    QPD done and no other problems or issues that need flagging.

Happy to green-light this. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to pop in and request this be run on Halloween to go with the set. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2024 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:What a Merry-Go-Round/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 04:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 00:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. 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:
  2. 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:
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

General comments

  • 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

Random selection of sources checked; all good. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, thanks very muchly for the review, I've made changes and responded above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  1. ^ Steele, Valerie (2008). Gothic: Dark Glamour. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. pp. 1–114. ISBN 978-0-300-13694-4.
  2. ^ Steele 2008, p. 79.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_a_Merry-Go-Round&oldid=1263502013"