Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oyster dress/archive1

Add links
Source: 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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2024 [1].

Oyster dress

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, Alexander McQueen was known for tight tailoring and sharp cuts. He made dresses, but he didn't make dresses. Then he went to work for Givenchy, where he learned the real art of dressmaking. Channelling his obsession with outdoing British designer John Galliano, he came up with the oyster dress, a riff on Galliano's 1987 shellfish dress that blew the original out of the water. The oyster dress, a full-length gown in layers of distressed beige chiffon that appeared in Irere (S/S 2003), is one of McQueen's most famous designs. Only two copies of the original are known to exist, owned by The Met in New York and Kim Kardashian, respectively. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Contemporary and retrospective reception to the dress was positive" - I would say the noun should be plural, as we are talking about two distinct receptions (although keeping the noun as "reception" is fine)
    • I don't think it should be, but I've rewritten the sentence to split the Gordian knot :P
  • "According to friend Sebastian Pons" => "According to his friend Sebastian Pons"
    • Fixed
  • "The Met has owned their copy since 2003" - singular/plural disagreement
    • Revised the sentence
      • I'm still seeing "The Met has (singular) owned their (plural) copy since 2003" in the footnote. Apologies if my comment above was a little unclear as to the exact point in the article that I was referring to....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, sorry, yeah, there were a few other points where I had "The Met...their" so I had fixed those but forgot the footnote.
  • That's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Chris, always appreciate your comments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Aside from my usual grumble about the false titles, the following may be of use:

Lead
  • "originated as a riff": a bit casual – may be worth rephrasing so it's a little more encyclopaedic
    • Changed to "as an interpretation of" in both instancees
  • "response to the dress was positive": is this the shellfish dress? That's the last one mentioned
    • Clarified
  • "the famed Galliano original": -> "the famed Galliano original"
    • I'll argue for keeping famed given that it's both supported by the sources, and significant to what McQueen was doing. People notice when you try to top something that's impressive and well-known to begin with. McQueen wasn't interested in outdoing Galliano's mediocre work, he could do that with his eyes closed. He wanted to outdo the guy's best to prove a point (even if mostly to himself) and he blew it out of the water.
Background
  • "[3][24][25][26]": you've got a few places where cite-bundling may be useful to make the reading experience a bit easier
    • I wound up revising these two instances instead to remove or replace references that turned out to be superfluous on comparison with stronger references, rather than cite bundling
Development
  • "The "oyster dress" is a riff": as above

That's my lot – I hope they help. - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Schro, I've fixed all except one, which I've hopefully made my case for. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Cheers PMC. Another nice piece of work! - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

Support. Have made trivial edits. The article is short but comprehensive, clear and pleasingly succinct/ free of puff. The usual high quality sources and prose from this nominator. Wouldn't be my favourite of McQueen's dresses, but fine. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edge3

Just a few comments:

  • "Spring/Summer 2003" and "Autumn/Winter 2006" – Per
    MOS:SEASON
    : Avoid using season names, and even if you do use them, they should be uncapitalized.
  • Normally this is correct, but in the fashion world "Spring/Summer" and "Fall/Winter" are used as proper nouns denoting seasons of fashion as opposed to natural seasons, the other two being Resort and Pre-Fall (see [2], [3], [4], [5] for a couple of examples). (Comment copied from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armadillo shoe/archive1). I've used this format in all my fashion-related articles and it hasn't been an issue.
  • Do we have an article on the seasons in the fashion industry? I think an explanatory footnote would be helpful. For instance, the first link you provided points out that the "spring/summer" season doesn't begin during the spring or summer. My concern is that a casual reader might be confused as to when these seasons occur. Edge3 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have an article, no. I'm not sure a footnote is necessary, it hasn't been a point of confusion so far. All the reader needs to know is that this is for X season, not the intricate details of what the seasons entail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't assume that readers aren't confused simply because they haven't spoken up.
    MOS:SEASON is written to avoid ambiguity, especially considering that the fashion weeks are all held in the northern hemisphere, particularly in places where there are four seasons (Paris, New York, Milan, and London). Readers who live in other regions would not necessarily agree on when "spring/summer" and "autumn/winter" take place. While I appreciate that you're trying to be consistent with your previous fashion-related FAs, I don't see how this practice is consistent with MOS:SEASON, and the Armadillo shoe FAC didn't really address this issue in depth. And for what it's worth, fashion show uses lowercase "spring/summer" and "fall/winter" in the lead section. Edge3 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's possible that other FAC reviewers in your previous articles didn't even consider MOS:SEASON, and one brief thread in the Armadillo shoe FAC really doesn't resolve the issue one way or the other. Also, the sources don't agree on whether to capitalize. For instance, Harper's Bazaar, which you cite numerous times, uses lowercase "spring/summer". Edge3 (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It does. Some publications choose to do this, which is annoying. On the other hand, publications I would consider authoritative, such as the websites for two of the Big Four fashion weeks (London and Paris) use capitals. When not stylizing for headlines, the Council of Fashion Designers of America uses proper nouns, as does Fashion Week Online, the main news site for all fashion weeks: [6], [7].
  • In order to clearly distinguish the lowercase natural seasons from the proper noun designation of a given fashion season, I have chosen to consistently capitalize, specifically to avoid confusion between the two concepts, and consistent with industry organizations. The use of uppercased seasons for these articles is perfectly consistent with MOS:SEASONS, which as I've already pointed out makes a clear exception for conventional names and designations. I am not going to lowercase it (introducing confusion with natural seasons) or remove it (literally removing information which is useful to the reader). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that sources disagree on whether to capitalize the season names tells me that the sources are treating them as natural seasons rather than proper nouns. If the seasons were proper nouns, as you suggest, then all sources would use capitalization because proper nouns are typically capitalized.
    MOS:PROPER
    .
  • MOS:SEASONS provides the following examples: annual mid-winter festival; the autumn harvest; 2018 Winter Olympics; Times Fall Books Supplement; details appeared in Quarterly Review, Summer 2015; the court's winter term. "Winter Olympics" is capitalized because the word "Olympics" itself is a proper noun (i.e. the name of an event). [8]. Times and Quarterly Review are more problematic because a Google search for "Times Fall Books Supplement" yielded no exact matches (Are we talking about the New York Times, or something else?), and Quarterly Review ceased publication in 1967 and had issues identified by months rather than by seasons. [9].
  • Even if we accept Times and Quarterly Review to be valid examples in MOS:SEASONS, they are capitalized because periodical names are capitalized, and the seasons are part of the periodical title. In this case, "spring/summer" and "autumn/winter" are used to describe fashion seasons, and seasons generally aren't capitalized.
  • Just in case, I'm going to ping @WP:FAC coordinators: to see if we can get extra opinions on the MOS. Edge3 (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your arguments are contradictory. You first argued to remove the season entirely based on a misreading of MOS:SEASONS, including a complaint that it could be confusing to mention seasons because natural seasons are not consistent across the globe. That is correct, natural seasons are not consistent, but a season in fashion is not the same thing as a natural season of the earth.
    Now you appear to have given up stumping for removal, but are arguing for lowercasing the words. This is based on another misreading, this time of of MOS:PROPER, where you argue that if they were truly proper nouns, "all sources would use capitalization". MOS:PROPER does not say anything close to this; the first sentence of that section actually says they are "typically capitalized". Typically, as in usually but not always; the fact that a few sources use a different house style does not invalidate the fact that industry sources use capitalization.
    Regardless, using lowercase would introduce exactly the kind of confusion you were cautioning against originally. In order to prevent confusion between natural seasons and seasons in fashion, it is reasonable for us to make a common sense decision and follow along with capitalizing, in order to clearly distinguish "Spring/Summer XXXX" as referring to a specific season of fashion, not to the natural seasons of the earth. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not being contradictory. Rather, my views are evolving as I'm trying to accommodate your concerns while adhering to our own MOS, which trumps any other style guide. Frankly, I'd prefer to get additional opinions on this thread as I think we're at an impasse.
  • Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA), which you cited previously, liberally capitalizes any phrase that could be construed as a proper noun: e.g. "Official New York Fashion Week (NYFW) Schedule" would be written as "official New York Fashion Week (NYFW) schedule" under our MOS. CFDA also capitalizes terms like "Fashion Fund", "Travel Fund", and "Fashion Calendar", all of which would be lowercase under our MOS. Similarly, Fashion Week Online is capitalizing terms like "Streetwear", "Avant Garde", "Collection", all of which may be suitable under its own style guide but not for ours.
  • MOS:SPORTCAPS. On the other hand, seasons in the fashion context are neither proper nouns nor trademarks, so capitalization is not permitted under our MOS. Edge3 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Chipping in, as seen on the FAC talk page. As SEASONS allows for use when the terms are used as a "conventional name", I'd be fine allowing it. The fashion industry has seasons, as this is just one example of it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat Understood. Would you also allow capitalization of the seasons? Edge3 (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably Yes. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat Would you mind elaborating? I'm curious as to how your interpretation of the MOS differs. Edge3 (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the reason's PMC has elucidated above. That and the fact the MIS are guidelines, rather than inflexible diktats that must be rigidly adhered to at all costs. If the core sources capitalise as being 'a thing' in that particular industry, we should take that into account. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see confusion about the fashion seasons as being likely, and I think use of the terms is justified by the exceptions listed in MOS:SEASONS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI – MOS:SEASONS actually includes a two-step inquiry: (1) whether season names should be used at all, and (2) if season names are used, whether they should be capitalized. Edge3 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Four people are now saying it's use is OK in this context. Is there any point in continuing to push the point over two words? - SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I understand why season names can be used, but Firefangledfeathers didn't indicate whether they support capitalization. Edge3 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also here following the note at WT:FAC. My thoughts align completely with SchroCat's. It's not in violation of MOS:SEASONS as the season names are being used consistent with part of a formal or conventional name or designation. They're used as proper nouns as PMC points out above, so capitalizing them is just fine. Ajpolino (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He designed a wedding dress based on the oyster dress..." – "He" is unclear because the previous sentence refers to Liv Tyler. I'd suggest stating "McQueen" again instead of "He".
  • Fixed
  • "Watt and Thomas both described..." – Who is Watt?
  • Oop, casualty of being a split, fixed
  • Footnote "a" refers to Savage Beauty, which isn't mentioned until the following sentence. I suggesting moving the footnote to the end of the paragraph.
  • Moved
  • The de Klerk source appears three times (currently numbered 45, 52, and 56). They appear to be duplicate citations, so what's the reason for having them separated? Edge3 (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like something wonky happened in the split from Irere and I never noticed. I've fixed it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, nice work! Edge3 (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Responses above, thanks for the comments Edge3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am usually a stickler for such things, I don't see that MOS:SEASONS applies here. The article could say 'his Blah Blah collection, and so long as that is how the sources refer to it it would be correct. Nor do I think that a further explanation for a reader is necessary in this case. I have reviewed previous McQueen FACs, noted the use of seasons, considered that SEASONS does not apply and so not mentioned it. I would expand "The Widows of Culloden (Autumn/Winter 2006)" to 'The Widows of Culloden (Autumn/Winter 2006 collection)' though. I note in passing that as Wikipedia is an unreliable source, another main space article cannot be referred to as a precedent. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild Same question as to SchroCat above. Would you allow capitalization of the seasons? Edge3 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for missing that. I would not allow it, but require it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused; could you please clarify? It's not allowed but required? In any event, MOS:SEASONS disfavors capitalization, and so does
MOS:ACTCAPS. So I'm hoping that you could elaborate on your reasoning. Edge3 (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I would agree with those above saying that the season names are OK and should be capitalized. Capitalization is needed because "Spring/Summer" is not the name of a season (or two seasons); it's a standard term within the industry that takes its name from those seasons. Reliable sources capitalize them and so should we. An analogous case is "Spring 1990" as the date of a quarterly magazine; if the magazine gives itself that date, as opposed to "May 1990", we don't override it and we capitalize because that's what sources on magazines do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Mike said. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even for something as simple as a quarterly publication, the sources are not consistent. Art Therapy uses lowercase "spring issue of", while Art Tour International uses the capitalized version. A quick Google search reveals several more examples of both the lowercase and capitalized versions. One could argue that our MOS requires capitalization per
MOS:TITLECAPS, since magazines are a literary work. But we have no such guideline on capitalization for fashion events specifically, and the reliable sources on fashion don't even agree on whether to capitalize. (As stated previously, Harper's Bazaar
uses lowercase.)
MOS:SEASON provides the court's winter term as an example, which is probably the closest analogy. It is a court "term" whose name comes from "winter", much like how fashion seasons derive their names from seasons. But we don't capitalize terms, even when the US Supreme Court does. Edge3 (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something like eight different people have now told you your interpretation is incorrect, including one of the FAC coords you pinged. How can you not accept that? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PMC, you don't have to convince a reviewer; it's the coords who'll decide if this is an actionable comment. Edge3, MOS:SEASON actually uses the example of a magazine title with an uppercase season, so I don't think you can use the MOS to argue it should not be capped. If you think that's incorrect you'd need to start a discussion on that talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mike is correct. (Of course.) In the case of an issue at FAC proving irresolvable, the reviewer flags up which criteria they believe is not met and, briefly, in what way. The reviewer may or may not feel strongly enough about it to also formally oppose. The nominator briefly summarises why they disagree. Both of these commonly consist of "See discussion above". The @WP:FAC coordinators: will then decide the merits of the views when closing the nomination, along with whether a consensus to promote has been achieved. They would usually briefly give their reasoning. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we have been at an impasse for quite some time. Such is the nature of consensus-driven editing on WP; we're not going to agree all the time.
I am opposed, and I summarize my review feedback as follows:
  • I agree with the others on this thread that using season names is appropriate under
    MOS:SEASON
    , so the "spring/summer" and "autumn/winter" designations may remain. I withdraw my objection on that ground.
  • I am not persuaded that capitalization of season names is appropriate, especially in light of
    MOS:PROPER
    ), the substantial majority of reliable sources do not consistently treat fashion seasons as a proper noun.
I would support FA status on the other criteria, as I find this article to be well written and thoroughly researched. Since I'm in the minority position on the MOS, and the other participants on this thread have given their MOS-based arguments in favor of capitalization, the FAC should be able to proceed without further debate. Edge3 (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

Is it necessary to use two non-free images to show what the dress looks like? The rationales don't indicate that. Nor do they indicate whether it could be replaced with a freely-created image of the dress. I think the ALT text could be more descriptive of what the dress looks like. Source-wise, I don't think The Guardian needs an ISSN, especially since it's not consistently applied. It seems like the sources are partly fairly prominent magazines and books from prominent publishers. Have these sources been inspected? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, @Jo-Jo Eumerus. I believe the two NFCC images are necessary. One shows the actual dress, which is obviously necessary, and IMO it's relevant to show the shellfish dress so people can see just how thoroughly McQueen transformed Galliano's concept. What part of the rationale do you believe is lacking? I clearly explain that the dresses are unique creations, not on public display or commercially available, so it is not possible to create a free image. The same rationale has been accepted for images at every other McQueen article so far.
Alt text has been enhanced and ISSN removed.
At this stage in my McQueen project, I can confidently say I have thoroughly combed every major source that discusses Alexander McQueen, and a significant majority of the minor sources as well. I would be frankly astonished if there were a source in English that discussed the oyster dress in detail that isn't represented in this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NFCC#1 rationale needs to say (in addition to what it already says) that the costume is probably copyrighted and thus can't be recreated as a free image. It is not clear why showing one dress style requires two non-free images; wouldn't one suffice? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The dress itself isn't copyrighted. Clothing designs are not copyrightable in the US or in the UK ([10], [11]). It can't be recreated as a free image because it's a unique item not on public display anywhere. This rationale has not been problematic in any other McQueen FAC, nearly all of which have used NFCC images of unavailable items.
One image will not suffice. The original oyster dress doesn't look a damn thing like Galliano's shellfish dress. The entire point is to demonstrate visually just how distinct the designs are. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the clothing isn't copyrightable then that opens the possibility that someone might recreate it and make a free photo. Which would make the non-free photo fail [[WP::NFCC#1]]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would understand your argument if this article were about a style of dress, let's say a little black dress - obviously for that article any little black dress will do. But it's about one specific dress, Alexander McQueen's oyster dress. If I were to somehow contrive to produce a recreation of the dress, it would still not be Alexander McQueen's oyster dress. It would be my knockoff of Alexander McQueen's oyster dress. An image of my version would not serve as a visual identifier of Alexander McQueen's oyster dress, it would serve as a visual identifier of my crappy knockoff. Just because fashion can't be copyrighted under a particular legal regime does not mean that this particular dress is not a unique object of art. I cover the uniqueness in the NFCC rationale, an NFCC rationale which has been acceptable at just shy of a dozen fashion FACs at this point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Is there anything else you guys are looking for here? The image review has not been responded to in 10 days now and Jo-Jo has been editing, so I have to assume they have no further objections. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for some third opinion, but if the article is more about that particular presentation than about a style your argument works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, just checking - is that a pass for both? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source, conditional (the article being mainly about a particular presentation rather than the style) pass for images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

  • "in a manner that resembles an oyster shell", "resembling an oyster shell or a mille-feuille pastry". Any chance of an illustration of an oyster shell to demonstrate this similarity to those readers who cannot readily call a mental image of an oyster shell to mind?
    • I feel genuinely silly for not thinking of this, added
  • "Only two copies are known to exist, held by the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met) in New York City and the media personality Kim Kardashian." Perhaps 'Only two copies are known to exist, one held by the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met) in New York City and the other by media personality Kim Kardashian'? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is better

Thanks for your comments Gog, adjustments made. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hello PMC, thanks for another fine McQueen article. I have a few questions and suggestions...

top

  • short description - move to top
    • Done

lede

  • The oyster dress is a high fashion dress - per mos:redundancy how about swapping second "dress" to "gown" here (then in next sentence at "McQueen's design is a one-shouldered gown in" go back to "dress").
    • Done
  • high fashion dress/gown - needs a hyphen?
    • I don't think so
  • hundreds of individual circles of chiffon were sewn - chiffon v organza, the circles were organza? see comment below at Development
    • Who
  • The dress originated as an interpretation of a 1987 - It's a reinterpretation? A search seems to indicate interpret is to explain while reinterpret is to render in a different way eg and eg and eg. Thomas p. 326 uses "reinterpretation".
    • Sure, changed in both instances
  • design by British designer - 2x design, maybe creation/created? gown? or change "a 1987 design by British designer John Galliano called the "shellfish dress", which" to something like 'the "shellfish dress" designed by John Galliano in 1987'.
    • I like your second version

Development and runway show

  • The "oyster dress" is as an - remove as
    • Typo, fixed
  • an interpretation of a 1987 design - reinterpretation as mentioned above?
    • Yep
  • Hundreds of individual circles of chiffon were sewn - organza, per McQueen talking in Ref 3, and Sarah Burton speaks of the top being tulle and chiffon and the organza circles applied to the skirt (in quote box)
    • Ah yeah
  • An estimated 180–260 metres - that's a very broad range difference. I can't access p 196 of Watt's book. Does she say only 180? McQueen says "260 meters of organza" for "the circles". So if the sewn-on circles took 260 m of organza, there must have also been x metres used of chiffon and tulle for the boned top and many many more for the base skirt?
    • In order: yes, it is. McQueen was a bullshit artist (affectionate), so I always assume he's exaggerating whenever he gives some kind of figure, hence providing the lower estimate as well. Watt gives 200 yards, which converts to 180 m.
      • Ah, I had no idea McQ was prone to exaggeration. JennyOz (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean yes, but no sources discuss how much fabric and material the rest of the dress took, and the article doesn't make any claims about the rest of the dress, so I'm not sure I see your point.
  • or a mille-feuille pastry - italics per article?
    • Done
  • In addition to the original beige dress, a version with a red bodice and the ruffled skirt in rainbow colours was also created - link bodice
    • Done
  • A version with a red bodice and the ruffled skirt in rainbow appeared in the final phase as Look 49 - repetitive of the above? change "A" to "The"?
    • Trimmed
  • calling it the "Rainbow Cancan" dress - possibly link
    cancan
    ?
    • Sure

Legacy

  • The Cartner-Morley quote "as soft and close as ripples on sand" - not in Ref 38 Vogue (Mower)? I found it in Guardian here
    • Huh, this is so strange. Everywhere through the history of Irere, the Morley ref was there. Then in the split, it magically became Mower. VE error, I have to assume. Anyway, rescued.
  • early focus on tailored designs and had mastered draping - perhaps link Draped garment#Present day use though it's not really what they are discussing?
    • It actually is, it's just such a shit section
  • the destroyed look of the dress - perhaps pipe Distressing
    • Sure
  • 2004 wedding of his then-assistant Sarah Burton. - "then-" is redundant?
    • I suppose

Extant copies

  • both stagings of the retrospective exhibition Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty - close italics markup
    • Done
      • Hmmm, VE threw in an extra quote after full stop? JennyOz (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh for god's sake, lol
  • archival red carpet wear, noting - possibly link Red carpet fashion, probably should have hyphen ie red-carpet wear
    • I definitely don't think that's correct, but I've done the link
  • Is there a better way to wrap up than talking about Kardashian?
    • Not really, she's the one who most recently did anything notable with the dress.

References

  • Refs 5 and 38 both same Mower article?
    • VE again; fixed
  • Ref 18 Beker, Jeanne - authorlink
    • Fixed
  • Ref 27 Diderich, Joelle - definitely the Brisbane Courier-Mail?
    • Yes? Says so on the Ebsco link
      • OK (I don't have Ebsco login). Courier-Mail takes a hyphen. And... refs 4 and 27 are dupes. JennyOz (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed dupes
  • Ref 55 Marx, Patricia - authorlink
    • Linked

Bibliography

  • Wilcox, Claire - tweak alpha order
    • Done

Image

  • Is this oyster a better illustration?
    • I don't think so, I don't love the black background

Categories

  • add Category:Individual dresses
    • Done

A delight to read, thanks, JennyOz (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for your comments, Jenny. Sorry about the delay in responding, sometimes I just look at a FAC and my brain goes "not today, kiddo". Most fixes made, with a few comments otherwise. Cheers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries about delay, I'm juggling a few reviews at moment, jumping all over the place. Thanks for changes and explanations. I've added a few minor comments above. Nothing major so I'll just very happily add my s'port now. See you next time. JennyOz (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cheers
        The Wikipedia Library, in case that's useful to you for future writing endeavors. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Closing note: This
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2024 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Oyster_dress/archive1&oldid=1211124970"