Talk:The Birds (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tkbrett (talk · contribs) 21:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to follow. Tkbrett (✉) 21:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

There are descriptions of the show's content split across paragraphs one and two. Specifically, I am talking about these sentences: Typically for McQueen in the early stages of his career, the collection centered around sharply tailored garments and emphasized female sexuality. (Paragraph 1). Like his previous professional shows, the show was styled with imagery of violence and death, with some models covered in tire tracks and others wearing white contact lenses. (Paragraph 2). I think it would it make more sense to connect these related thoughts.

It's a bit splitting hairs, but the first sentence is about the clothing in the collection in general, while the second bit refers to the styling of the models in the show. Removed from the show and sold on a hanger, the clothing is still very severe and overtly sexual, while the body printing and white eyes were just for the runway.

Yes, that makes sense.

Background

Do you prefer to use British or American English for McQueen's articles? There is no tag at the moment, and though the article is almost entirely American English, there is an instance in this section of British English ("sexualised").

I'm not deliberately doing American, they should be BrEng, I mostly just forget to do it and eventually someone at FAC points it out.

Concept and creative process

Passive voicing here ("was deemed") makes it unclear who is speaking in the quotation which follows: The original concept Ungless laid out for the bird prints was deemed "awful ..."

Fixed

References and copyright

No plagiarism issues, per Earwig.
The photograph at the top of the article is appropriately licensed with its CC tag, but I am unsure about the outfit. Can outfits be copyrighted? Are there any issues with having a photograph of it here, even if the photograph itself is PD?

Generally fashion is not copyrightable as a work of art. See [1] and [2] for some UK-based legal thinking on the matter. I generally haven't run into it as an issue in previous fashion FA/GAs, and Nikkimaria is quite strict about that kind of thing at FA.

The pallet wrap dress has an appropriate fair use tag.
Beyond the scope of a GA review, but I figured if you had this in mind for FAC, you'd want these pointed out:
- Evans 2003 having New Haven, Connecticut, linked is probably WP:OVERLINK.
- Fairer 2016 lists it as New Haven, CT, though state abbreviations should not be used (MOS:STATEABBR).
- Thomas 2015 is missing a location.

All fixed, thank you

Final verdict

I made edits as I went through the article that I did not think worth bringing up here. Please make sure you do not object to any of those changes.

On hold: Premeditated Chaos: Apologies this review took a week. It is another very well written article that can easily be read by a non-expert. I love Hitchcock and I actually watched The Birds for the first time not that long ago. I must say though, it never would have crossed my mind that it could spawn fashion designs. The film's overriding impression is that of dread, something I would not have previously thought translatable to the medium of fashion. McQueen clearly had a great eye. Tkbrett (✉) 14:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and edits, Tkbrett. Mostly everything adjusted per your comments although I did have thoughts on the first one. McQueen had a mind like a Wunderkammer, packed to the brim with all kinds of oddities. So many designers are incredibly samey, reworking the same idea every season, but McQueen always wanted to be making something new. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to pass another great article. Tkbrett (✉) 23:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Let me know when The Kinks have another ~~series of assaults~~ concert tour that needs looked at :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]