Template:Did you know nominations/Anna October

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Anna October

(
)

Created by Trillfendi (talk). Self-nominated at 21:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC).

  • On the knife edge of size (I did make some copyediting for language) at 1511 bytes and new enough. QPQ present. @Trillfendi: I don't see a mention of employees delivering clothes in the hook source for ALT0, and ALT1's bureaucracy claim is not included in the article but is in the hook, so it should be added to the article. If those issues could be rectified, both hooks would be suitable, though I prefer ALT0. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: I now realize it was the Vogue source for ALT0, not Marie Claire UK, so I now replaced it. For ALT1, The Guardian source inline (in the same sentence as sustainable) talked about bureaucracy and reuse of materials; in that source it’s all in the same paragraph. Although in the article someone else user:Victuallers claims the ethical reuse of material is not sustainable fashion, despite what Vogue' said in their description, and they changed it. Trillfendi (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
"claims the ethical reuse of material is not sustainable fashion" umm citation required I think. I don't think I said that or even typed it. Sustainable Fashion means being sustainable. Using deadstock is not sustainable ... you run out of deadstock! If you are convinced that Vogue are not greenwashing (I reckon they have blinkers on) then change it back ... but are you sure Vogue are not just saying that using deadstock isnt quite as bad as what is uually done? Victuallers (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
You said here that using last years material doesnt make you sustainable. Its a contradiction. In this, Vogue described a Ukrainian designer being sustainable by using deadstock (although October is focused on in the second half of the article), Marie Claire Ukraine said that Anna October's collection using deadstock (Ukrainian: дедсток) makes it more ethical and ecological. That's what makes her a sustainable fashion brand. Trillfendi (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The contradiction is that being "sustainable" is not a graduated scale. You are either sustainable or you are not. So when your quote above says that using dead stock "makes it more ethical and ecological" then it confirms that they are becoming "more" .... ie they are not there yet. i.e. "sustainable". This marketing stuff about being "more ethical and ecological" can be said of a coal mine than now uses recyclable plastic cups on Tuesdays. It sounds great ... but the coal mine is not sustainable. ..... the same applies to using deadstock. Imagine a designer goes to the store and chooses a material to use for this years collection. "Oh" says the marketing guy.... "just before you chose the material it was deadstock"... wooo ! I think we can claim we are becoming "more ethical and ecological" ... why I bet some may be convinced that we are now "sustainable". Victuallers (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: The comments seem to have distracted the review... I made my point and its not important. Victuallers (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
And I should have responded 15 days ago but better late than never. @Trillfendi: Now that I read the Vogue source, I dunno if Having been sent to New York before the war broke out, her current collection was shipped to Paris for fashion week. quite matches the tone of ALT0. I'd like to see it revised to be closer to the source. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
She says "there wasn't a VAT system in Ukraine, which made it hard to work there", but VAT has been in Ukraine since early 1992, and there have been VAT overhauls in 1997 and 2010, so this claim is really dubious. I've flagged it that way, as she's not an expert in tax law. Also, you might want to machine translate this interview (in Russian). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I changed the alt to a more general version of events. Trillfendi (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Trillfendi: I would accept ALT0, but the VAT issue in article text must be resolved. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I have gone ahead and resolved the issue by removing mention of VAT but noting an antiquated customs system, which could have been the case in 2014. I'm unsure why she said there was no VAT at all, though the ukwiki article mentioning a 2017 introduction of automatic VAT refunds might provide a clue. Thanks to Szmenderowiecki for finding information on this. Hopefully this page can get moved into preps/queues quickly now that this is resolved. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Anna_October&oldid=1093387995"