Template:Did you know nominations/Dress history

Created by Diary of a Dress Historian (talk). Nominated by OAnick (talk) at 15:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Dress history; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• It was nominated on time and this is the nominator's second nomination. I am not sure that the hook is necessarily interesting to a general audience. I would suggest looking at this paragraph:

By using an inclusive and expansive range of different approaches and drawing on an extensive variety of sources, the subject of dress history and practice of dress historians highlight how the parameters within which dress historians conduct their research is less bound by traditional forms of recognised practice.[3]

If you could clarify what it is "less bound" than that could probably be the basis for a hook.Llewee (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment C'mom - no link or bolding in the hook, and you can't use wikipedia as your source! If you're going to use that pic, crop it. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  • To clarify: all nominations require a bold link to the nominated article in the proposed hook; this hook does not have such a thing, nor does it directly relate to the topic, "dress history". A new hook more clearly invoking dress history is in order. You may wish to review
    WP:DYK for further DYK information and instructions. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk
    ) 19:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Further comment, I don't myself see a problem with the hook, if bolded & linked. I've now added such a link. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Llewee, BlueMoonset, Johnbod, and Diary of a Dress Historian: Fixed source and an alternative hook added. Kindly have a look. Thanks RV (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Llewee: Do you need this for a QPQ and are coming back to finish this? or should I pop in and get it out the door?

@RAJIVVASUDEV: I can tell you right now that the alt doesn't help. They don't go around often saying that to people with or without the second quote mark. The first hook should be fine, though, especially if you replace "historical time period" with "historical period". Otherwise it can become a garden path sentence for some readers. — LlywelynII 09:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry the previous ping didn't work. I personally don't think it is an interesting enough hook. Llewee (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Llewee: That's fine. You're back and will finish up the review, then, when (I guess) @RAJIVVASUDEV: has time to come up with a better hook? Suits me. I noticed they needed someone to replace the old reviewer on Climate change in Spain anyway. — LlywelynII 16:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok yes Llewee (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII, Llewee, Diary of a Dress Historian, and Johnbod: If we are on the same page, let's conclude the review with ALT1. Thanks. RV (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That was me tagging out. Llewee is back and will finish up, it looks like. — LlywelynII 17:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Wedding dress of Princess Alexandra of Denmark, 1863

• It seems likely that this nomination isn't able to produce an interesting hook: the original hook, now resubmitted as ALT1 with "time" deleted, is inadequate (definitional hooks rarely work unless there is something unexpected or fascinating about them, and that isn't the case here despite what Johnbod and LlywelynII appear to have said above, though the latter also invited "a better hook" after that). RV|RAJIVVASUDEV|RV or original nominator OAnick need to come up with one soon, and contra LlywelynII's note above, Llewee will not be returning because an interesting hook has not been produced as requested above (reiterated on their talk page after a query). The nomination is twelve weeks old, and something needs to be done very soon: because of hook issues, a full review of the nomination has yet to be done and still needs to be assuming an interesting hook is proposed. Thanks to those involved. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the subject (unlike, let's face it, most DYK subjects) will be inherently interesting to many readers, & doesn't need the usual hooky treatment. Unfortunately the creator hasn't edited for over a month, but I'm sure there are loads of hooky details that could be added. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Johnbod: Please check ALT2, and ALT3. Thanks RV (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Those are ok, with the same source. Also a pic available, which would be more appropriate if these are used. ALT3 seems better. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that, rather than "filmed", which would cause people to think of a moving picture these days (especially in the US), "photographed" is a better choice. It is also the word used in the Wikipedia article about the dress, which is more specific about the "first": It was the first in British royal history to be photographed while being worn. That distinction—"while being worn"—should certainly be checked; it implies that other dresses may previously have been photographed, though not on the bride (possibly afterward?). A couple of possible hooks (ALT4 uses "wore" rather than "had" to cover that very distinction), that also adjust which words are bolded:

• ALT3a: ... that the dress of Princess Alexandra of Denmark was the first photographed royal wedding dress in the history of dresses?

However, that's three uses of "dress" in one hook. Here's an attempt that reduces that to two, adds in the year:

• ALT4: ... that in 1863, Princess Alexandra of Denmark wore the first photographed royal wedding dress (pictured) in the history of dresses?

Pinging Llewee to see whether they'd be willing to return and check the new hooks and undertake a full review; if not, we can call for a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

ALT4 looks the best to me. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree. ALT4 is a compelling hook. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, too. Shouldn't we add a picture? RV (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I have belatedly added "(pictured)" to ALT4. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Full review of nominated article and ALT4 hook needed now that hook has been settled on. I have struck the earlier hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

... New article, no copyvio issues, QPQ not required, long enough, review above noted. ALT4 is interesting, in the article and followed by a reliable reference containing the hook fact. The recently added image is clear and free. The article has a significant amount of unreferenced text and unreferenced lists. Whispyhistory (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@

interpretations. Kindly check if it works. Thanks RV (talk

) 10:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@RAJIVVASUDEV:... thanks, looks much better. The article's readability needs simplyfying a bit. Terms "captivating", "dynamic trends", "fosters a profound appreciation", "enduring relevance", don't sound Wiki style. Maybe someone can advise. Whispyhistory (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

words to watch based on the above quotes, but checking the "Dress history research sources" section, the problem seems more to be that this is giving, in Wikipedia's voice, opinions on how useful or good the various mentioned sources are (and choosing which sources to mention or omit in the first place). I can't tell whether the bulk of these are based on the Survey of historic costume: a history of Western dress source by Tortora and Eubank (the reference only credits Tortora, and should credit them both), in which case the characterizations need to be properly attributed if they are to be retained, or if they are the opinion of the editors who wrote the article, in which case words and phrases such as the ones Whispyhistory mentioned as well as "invaluable", "exhaustive", "stood out as an exceptionally valuable", and "the most comprehensive reference to date" need to be qualified, made more factual, or eliminated altogether. BlueMoonset (talk

) 20:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

...and while I was writing the above, MartinPoulter was deleting the entire "Dress history research sources" section with the edit summary Sorry, this whole section is not in Wikipedia style at all, and the paragraph about Princess Alexandra's wedding dress with the summary remove this paragraph which is not in Wikipedia style and is in the wrong article. In addition, the opening paragraph, with its "captivating journey" phrase, was deleted for similar reasons. This basically strips out the material added by RV, and renders ALT4 ineligible, as the hook facts are no longer in the article. The image of the wedding dress has been orphaned and should probably be removed as well. Since the original author hasn't edited for well over a month, asking MartinPoulter whether they think there are any interesting hooks that can come from the article. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, and for making my edits to the article without being aware this discussion was going on. Firstly, the relation between Dress history and History of fashion design is like that between Economics and Economy; the former is the set of research techniques and theories that we use to understand the latter. There's no sense in having a paragraph about a particular dress in Dress history; that belongs in the other article. It is a good idea for the Dress history article to mention the sources used by dress historians. That's an improvement I would welcome, but the text has to be written in a suitable style for Wikipedia, not in a breathlessly promotional way. The article as it was submitted for review was a great example of a descriptive, encyclopaedic style that did not evaluate and did not tell the reader to do anything. The version that passes review should have this quality.

So I realise how frustrating it is that that leaves us without a hook for this article. I looked further at Ref 1, and was interested to see that it advocates for studying items of clothing themselves, against an established practice that says that historical research has to be done from textual sources. "Even many fashion historians spend little or no time examining actual garments, preferring to rely exclusively on written sources and visual representations." (page 13, quoting a source from 1998); "Within fashion studies, the history of object-based research using dress artifacts is comparatively brief" (page 18); "In 1980, [Jules David Prown] concluded that the analysis of the stylistic qualities of those objects [...] could yield 'a different kind of cultural understanding' for those that could overcome their reluctance to work with non-textual materials." (page 20). I've added a sentence to the article to say that much research on dress history was done entirely from documentary sources and that object-based research is a relatively recent development. Thus I propose:

ALT5 ... that much of the research in dress history has been done from documents, illustrations, and photographs rather than by studying items of clothing?

MartinPoulter (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That seems ok to me, but nb History of fashion design only covers Western high fashion of c.1750 to present - and should be renamed. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Whispyhistory, can you return and review ALT5? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

... Approving ALT5. Hook is intersting, short enough, in the article and one of the sources I can access. AGF on other source. Whispyhistory (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)