Talk:The Widows of Culloden

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Widows of Culloden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 14:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Hi, I'll be reviewing this. It's a bit of a longer article and fashion is not my area of expertise, so bear with me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Minor issues resolved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No outstanding concerns. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References format is acceptable, though I'm surprised to see the Sfn-style references are not listed out anywhere. Not saying it's wrong, but I'm more familiar with a separate section that lists out the Sfn references, such as at Battle of the Bulge. I know you plan to bring this to FAC, and someone might say something about that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Sourced largely to trade publications, published books, and news organizations. Some primary sources, but I don't see anything I question the accuracy of. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   Article is extensively cited and predominantly uses secondary sources. I cannot find any instances of original research. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig check only pulls up quotes. From a brief look at a few sources I do not see any issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Article is quite comprehensive, I cannot imagine anything more which is necessary to add for GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Article is fairly detailed, but I wouldn't say it's too detailed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Opinions are attributed to sources, and in general I see a fair balance of viewpoints. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Edit history shows steady improvement, no issues with stability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

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:

   I've reviewed the copyright status of all photos. Fair use photos have valid and complete rationales, the remainder are appropriately licensed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Suggest adding alt text, but otherwise this criterion is satisfied. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Happy to pass the article at this point. Excellent work, PMC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Prose comments

• In the body, Gemma Ward should be linked the first time her name is mentioned, not the second time.
• American actress Sarah Jessica Parker attended the opening of exhibition AngloMania: Tradition and Transgression in British Fashion (2006) the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art wearing... There appears to be a missing word here.
• shown at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 2011 (The Met) Shouldn't the parenthetical (The Met) go immediately after the name, before the date?

That's about all I can find. Article is very well written. Happy to promote once these few things are addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks enormously for the review :) You know I appreciate it! I've made the above tweaks, and have reorganized the refs section so anything that's a journal or book (ie anything likely to be SFN'd) is in the bibliography. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Culloden

The lead reads, in part "It is named for the widows of the Battle of Culloden (1746), a major conflict between Scotland and England." This is not reflective of what the main article says and is incorrect. Perhaps tweak it to match the article's phrasing? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I admit it's a simplified explanation, but I don't think it's fair to say it's incorrect. It was a battle of English against Scots Jacobites which led to some very nasty consequences for Scotland as a whole, all of which is supported by my sources. In my opinion it's unnecessary to get into the nitty-gritty of Jacobitism in the body here, you don't need it to understand McQueen's fashion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The battle of Culloden was not fought between Scotland and England and to say it was is incorrect. The source you cite does not support this assertion. I think the article is great. I was skimming through it because I want to schedule it as a TFA in May. I have taken 11 articles on various Anglo-Scottish wars and battles through FA. I really, really know what I am talking about here.

Can I suggest that the main article be tweaked to "It was named for the women who were widowed following the Battle of Culloden (1746), an engagement which marked the defeat of the Jacobite rising of 1745, a failed attempt by Charles Edward Stuart to regain the British throne and a major conflict between Scotland and England." This would be a minimal change and the text would then match your source. Or, perhaps, "It was named for the women who were widowed following the Battle of Culloden (1746), an engagement which marked the defeat by the British government of the Jacobite rising of 1745, a failed attempt by Charles Edward Stuart to regain the British throne"? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Have a look at my revision. I've added a few citations to historians, reworded it as "mythologized as", and added some context about the outcome that I think supports McQueen's resentment a little more. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Cheers. That looks better. If you were to change "The battle led to English efforts" to 'The battle led to British efforts', then it seems ok. Royle is as sound a source as there is, and he sticks it on page 1; end of argument. It's a fine article, even for FA, but seemed to me to have slipped a bit into presenting the mythology as fact. Nicely sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, done. I'll admit I'm not as strictly familiar with the history so I figured glossing over it for the sake of getting to the fashion would be fine, but I do think it looks better with the context now. Thanks as always - my articles always look better after you've had your eyes on them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)