Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Hunger (Alexander McQueen collection)/archive1

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of Alexander McQueen's lesser collections, The Hunger is primarily interesting because it marked the last of McQueen as a scrappy little designer with no money and a "no press is bad press" policy. From this point onward, although still obsessed with sex and death, he began to rely less and less on controversial shock tactics and more on showmanship and artistry. Here, though, he sits on the cusp, with a worm-filled corset and clothing that smacked of the macabre sensuality of vampires. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Dipping my toe back into the FAC water to review this (I couldn't resist).

Would Look 64 be a better lead image? It's visually much more striking and was the most notable piece in the collection
- Yeah good plan
"film featuring vampires": "Featuring" is a potentially awkward word here, given the film is actually featuring the actors Deneuve, Bowie and Sarandon, who are portraying vampires. "film about vampires", maybe?
- lol, yes, fair
"McQueen's first collection": you can use "his" here without any loss of understanding.
- Done
"the Natural History Museum of London" looks like a formal (and v awkward) title. Maybe "~~the~~ London's Natural History Museum"?
- Done, and merged the sentence with the previous one for tidiness
"Sexuality was front and centre" A bit of an WP:IDIOM. Maybe "Sexuality was prominent in the collection"?
- Hm, I had this comment at the GAN as well. OED doesn't actually mark "front and centre" as idiomatic, so I thought it might be okay in BrEng. I'll defer if you think it's better the other way though
"Eugene Souleiman and Val Garland returned for hair and makeup, respectively": I think this could be expanded slightly. Although obvious to you (and to me, who has read several of these), I think a first-time reader would struggle to understand what "hair and makeup" may mean in this context (and it should be "make-up" in BrEng).
- Tweaked, how's that?
"Eugene Souleiman styled hair with 1980s throwback styles: mullets and Mohican haircuts.[c][38][55] Makeup by Val Garland": just "Souleiman" and "Garland" will suffice
- I'm going to remove the names entirely since I now have them earlier, I think this was a leftover. Again I've condensed the sentences
"spot in a underwhelming": "an underwhelming"
- oop, yes
"Andrew Wilson, in his biography Blood Beneath the Skin, wrote that the "press were far from kind" about the collection." Would this not be better at the beginning of the Reception section? It doesn't sit well with the retrospective comments (Wilson is talking about the press, not about commenting on the collection itself).
- I moved this up and actually wound up reworking the whole reception section around it, so you may want to take another look. I never felt the order was right and now I'm more satisfied with it.
Just checking that "disgust...bears the imprint" is in line with the WP:ELLIPSIS requirements?
- Yup, just double checked Evans and she's using the ellipsis in quoting someone

That's my lot. Another excellent and enjoyable article. – SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always for your comments, Schro :) All responded to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good changes there and thanks for following my suggestions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima's review[edit]

Oh yeah, I was gonna source check one of these, huh? Let's go.

2A and 2B: "Ensemble, The Hunger, spring/summer 1996". Metropolitan Museum of Art. Retrieved 5 November 2023.

It indeed calls the weird hip things "antlers", and the quote from McQueen is a direct quote from the page. Good.

3A and 3B: Watt 2012, p. 87.

I can see how you write all these with these books at your disposal. Yes, the skirt things are "wire handcuffs" now, and it does indeed describe the black and white cut thing as yonic. ("pudenda"? seriously?) Good.

5A, B, C, D: Howarth, Dan (7 August 2015). "Shaun Leane speaks about his work with Alexander McQueen". Dezeen.

They really name magazines anything these days. It being named a stag piece by Leane is there, used for both 5A and 5D. Animalistic leopard print, check. And he "...between all the girls" quote is there. Good.

7: Doig, Stephen (30 January 2023). "How Alexander McQueen changed the world of fashion – by the people who knew him best".

Yeah, this gives us some McQueen Lore with him being trained as a tailor at Savile Row. Good.

16: Blow, Detmar (14 February 2010). "Alex McQueen and Isabella Blow". The Daily Telegraph

Mostly checks out. The story of Blow buying his entire graduate collection is included, and her serving as a mentor/muse. But it doesn't actually name Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims as the collection. Figured it'd be pretty easy to just slap an existing cite on this sentence to cover your bases.

Sure, threw in a cite to Bethune

26A, B, and C, and D. Watt 2012, p. 85.

Triple cite here! I think 26A is citing that it's funded ultimately by a company called Onward Kashiyama? It does indeed support 26B, C, and D by talking about how expensive these productions were, the collab with Björk, Goldie (plus their relationship status), and Jimmy Pursey of Sham 69. Good.

35A, B, C, and D Gleason 2012, p. 35.

I don't actually have this book, but searching "red, white, black" on Google Books helpfully gives the snippet where Gleason talks about the color scheme, strategically bared skin, and exposed nips of both sexes. Searching "30 percent" checks out cite D. Good.

36A, B, C, D, and E "The London season". Women's Wear Daily. 24 October 1995.

WWD has it all. "Wearable clothes." $1.1 million orders. The fact that London Fashion Week otherwise sucked was right there at the start, complete with the praises of his interestingness. Talks about him moving on from the weirdness of Highland Rape. Good.

39A & B, Loschek 2009, p. 55.

The link is formatted in a way that it opens into page 81 with a search result for Widows of Culloden - might wanna fix that. 55 is disappointingly not actually included in the preview, so AGF.

Formatting removed (I can send you the page if you want to check it)

41A, B, C. Veness, Alison (24 October 1995). "Fashion's fascist softens his line". The Evening Standard (West End Final ed.). p 3.

Quite the headline. And it checks out: Bumsters are there. Him getting slightly more normal is there. The "hinted at something nasty" in lieu of blood quote is also there. Good.

58A, B, C. Evans 2003, p. 145.

Like Loschek, this is formatted in a way where it takes you to a search results for the word "birds". I can't see the whole page, but it certainly checks out that he claims a lot of his friends are lesbians. I hope you use the "I'm not going to say my clothes are for lesbians" quote in one of these articles. For 58A, I was able to get the "We need strong, balsy girls" quote to show up. Good.

This is definitely one of those cases where I wish McQueen had articulated himself just a touch better so I could expand on his theory of "lesbian models = no misogyny". C'est la vie. I've fixed the formatting again here.

59A & B, Watt 2012, pp. 85–86

V signs and middle fingers abound. And Watt's critique of it well described in the source. Good.

68 A & B, Alexander, Hilary (29 October 1995). "Absolutely brutal". The Sunday Telegraph. p. 47.. 69. Alexander, Hilary (26 October 1995). "Capital gains". The Daily Telegraph. p. 16.

These are mainly used together so I'm reviewing them as one set. Yep, his mooning of the audience is there. Alexander's description of him specifically says he is a "pale, slightly chunky boy", so I'd include the full phrasing there. And Alexander's general apathy towards the whole deal is also there.

Oops, slightly-ised the chunkiness.

76, Watt 2012, p. 74.

Do we really need four cites here? I guess it's a kinda controversial claim. I also don't really see what this is supporting here. It talks about The Birds, but doesn't really mention sexualised styling or claims of misogyny at all. Bit confused by this one.

My fault, this should've been Watt p. 76 the whole time, which does talk about it. I borrowed it from another of my articles where I'd fucked it up; they've also been fixed.

78, Barajas, Joshua (4 September 2015). "How Alexander McQueen's grotesque creations wrecked the runway". PBS NewsHour

Didn't expect a PBS cite. And yes, here we have a bunch of quotes about misogyny and sexualized designs, which perfectly backs up the source across a range of collections. Good.

89 Mower, Sarah (31 August 2015). "When Fashion Renegades John Galliano and Alexander McQueen Landed at Dior and Givenchy, Paris Fashion Was Forever Changed". Vogue

This indeed mentions how Galliano and McQueen were compared during this time. Good.

97 Conti, Samantha (13 March 2015). "Celebrating the Opening of Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty". Women's Wear Daily

66 items not in the original, all checks out. Good.

Generally, great use of sources: none of them look like they shouldn't be here. They are formatted correctly and regularly. Super pleasing bibliography with the chapters broken out like that, I might have to steal that! It seems like you have exhausted wide swathes of the high quality coverage of McQueen with the books you use. Looks like we just need to fix the couple little irregularities here and there I dug up. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima, thanks for the thorough check. Everything that needed resolving should be sorted now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep, looks good! Thank you very much for your good work on this topic. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima and thanks for that. A couple of queries:

Is that a pass for a source review as well as a pass for the spot check?
Is that a general support for promotion as well as a pass for the spot check? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild Yep on both counts. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from Llewee[edit]

I'm not sure I know enough about this subject to be hugely helpful but I did notice two little things. In the second paragraph of "Financial backing", you use the term "broke" to refer to not having much money which should probably be changed to something more formal. Also, this phrase "tailored jacket whose shoulders and lapels", in the first paragraph of the "Worm closet" section, strikes me as grammatically odd. I'd consider "whose" to indicate belonging to a person rather than an object.--Llewee (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Llewee. Subbed out broke. As for the other thing, apparently the inanimate whose is a long-standing bone of contention in English, but most modern style guides seem to accept it. Personally I can't stand "of which" when I can help it, it sounds stodgy, so I'll keep the "whose" for now unless my friendly neighborhood BrEng people tell me it's wrong. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's understandable.--Llewee (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

serial[edit]

In the spirit of the topic and celebration of the designer, I will review this covered only in glistening oils and carrying the platters that matter.

- What an image.
Perhaps worth linking muse, as a semi-specialist term.
- Done
Suggest linking 'Runway show' at its first usage out of the lead.
- It's linked in the first section of background, but I could link it in another section as well if you think it's worth it
The small section re. collaborators / short payments etc is interesting; are you allowed to name anyone specifically? Perhaps too much detail for a background section, though.
- I weighed this and ultimately decided it would be too much detail. I could easily footnote a few examples if you think it's interesting enough to include.
Sebastian can be just Pons on subsequent reference.
- Trimmed
The other images are self-explanatory, but do you have any idea of the symbolism of the thorns? I'm guessing Calvary, barbed wire, perhaps, but it would be interesting to know.
- Probably McQueen's usual quasi-gothy quasi-religious sado-masochistic thing, so very likely Calvary and barbed wire. Sadly nobody specifically gets into the thorns in the sourcing.
But not as interesting as knowing which august organs had their journos relegated to the cheap seats!
- Very sadly, Thomas doesn't get into it, and nobody else seems to dwell on it, not even the usually-gossipy Callahan.
No images of the Tusk? In fact, images generally, as it's such a visual article? (I've got no idea how it work's I'm afraid—I guess I assumed that with all the photos getting taken, some would be available.)
- Unfortunantely there just aren't that many images available of McQueen items, especially his really old stuff. I've scoured Flickr for CC images from the Savage Beauty exhibits but there's very little of The Hunger. I've done NFCC for the worm corset, as for many of the showpiece items in other articles, but I don't think I can justify another NF image. (Maybe WMF will give me a grant to buy a tusk earring - only £525, what a steal)
Evening Standard link on first usage.
- Fixed, I think

That's me. Interesting article, thanks. ——Serial Number 54129 15:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Serial, all responded to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed all traces of oil. Cool article. Clothes more aggressive than a suit of armour! Happy to support. ——Serial Number 54129 10:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino[edit]

Have missed your McQueen series so far. Better to be late to the party than to miss it entirely. Partway through reading I Googled to find one of the looks and was pleased to find you can watch the whole runway show on Youtube (for better or for worse, the camera is on McQueen's front for the farewell mooning). Highly enjoyable after reading the article. Anyway, some small comments, though this is outside my normal topical realm:

Just in case you get a reader as ignorant as me, could we add a line in the Background section about McQueen's rise to prominence with Highland Rape immediately before this (or whatever you think the appropriate framing is)? I was surprised to learn that from the Reception section. Conversely, I didn't need the sentence on his Givenchy run as background. It happened after this show anyway.
- Good catch about Highland Rape, that's been added. I think Givenchy is relevant as the Legacy section mentions him working there, but I've integrated it into the Highland Rape bit so now it feels more connected
"prints.[32] aware that McQueen" I think Pons' name got accidentally chopped all the way out of this sentence.
- Oops, yes
"a love triangle between two vampires and a human doctor, and Cat People" at first read I thought the cat people were the third point of the love triangle (I would watch that movie). You could make it slightly clearer by switching the order of the movies, but I'm not deeply bothered by it either way.
- I think I'm going to keep it as-is, since Cat People is definitely the lesser inspiration compared to The Hunger; I think the capitals and italics should cover me
"30% compared to the precious" a typo for "previous" or am I misunderstanding the sentence more completely?
- Typo, good catch
This could be a me problem, but the tense of "was now being" strikes my ear a bit odd as both past and present. I'd cut it to "was being" or just "was".
- Reworded a bit as I didn't like the sentence anyway
"...for The Birds (Spring/Summer 1995)" you already told us the season of The Birds above. It could be cut here. Ditto "who had worked on Highland Rape (Autumn/Winter 1996)" (or maybe there's an intentional convention I'm not catching?)
- Nope, I just didn't double check what I'd already mentioned :)
"white shift with a print" Consider wikilinking shift (clothing). I had to look it up. Again, it's very possible I'm an uncommonly ignorant reader.
- No, this is a good link

Thanks for your comments, Ajpolino, really helpful. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super, happy to Support. Looking forward to the next one. Ajpolino (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

I would recommend adding WP:ALT text to File:The Hunger bodysuit at Savage Beauty by Alexander McQueen.jpg.
- Alt texted
There are a few duplicate links in the article. The ones that I found are the following: Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims, Highland Rape, and Mohican haircuts. I would unlink one for the first two as there are instances of the items being linked in the same section.
- The MOS for duplicate links allows for duplicated links where they're in separate sections and useful to the reader. I believe the ones I've left in meet that.
  - That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an instance where four citations are used in the "Analysis" section. I would recommend doing something like citation bundling to avoid potential comments about citation overkill.
- Bundled
I have a comment for this part, (with some reviewers finding it a highlight of a dull season, and others denigrating McQueen's perceived immaturity as a designer), from the lead. I would avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as I have noticed this brought up in several FACs. I do not have a strong opinion about it either way, but I do think it is best avoided.
- No, you're right, and normally I'm quick to point out when others do it. I've revised
There are a few instances where the citations are not in numeric order. That is not a requirement for a FA, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention just in case.
- Fixed
I think I asked you a similar question in a previous McQueen FAC so apologies in advance. This is more a clarification question than a request or recommendation. According to the article, McQueen's mother and his aunt were both present at the show and put in the front row. Was there anything on how that might be potentially awkward or uncomfortable given the show's focus on sexuality? There is likely not anything noteworthy to include, but I did think of the question after reading about the show's focus on sexuality and then reading that his mom and aunt were right there.
- Nobody discusses it, unfortunately. Although from what I've read of her, McQueen's mum was a tough old London woman, so I'm not sure she would have been uncomfortable at all.
  - That makes sense. He would have known his mom and family best after all and she must have been cool with it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain about this part, (fashion philosopher Julia Kristeva). I read Kristeva when I was an English Literature major in graduate school, which feels like a lifetime ago, and I am not sure that "fashion philosopher" is what I would reference her or her work as. Granted, I do understand how it is difficult to come up with the descriptors for this kind of thing. Just seemed off.
- Swapped for "cultural critic", how's that?
  - I think that is a better fit as it is more general and in my opinion more accurate to her work. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not required for a FAC, but I would recommend archiving your web sources to avoid any future headaches with potential link rot or death.
Apologies in advance for this more nitpick-y comment, but are you using title case for the citation titles? I notice that some use it, such as Citation 91, while others do not, such as Citation 42. I do not have strong feelings about it, but I remember getting a note about this in one of my more recent FACs so I am just more aware of it. It is likely about having consistency.
- Oops, normally I do these as I go but there were a few late-added refs that I forgot. Should be okay now.
  - Thank you for correcting this. I was never good at doing this in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. I believe that should be everything, but I will read through the article again to make sure I have not missed anything. Great work as always! Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Aoba! Always delighted to see your name at my FACs :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the kind words. This was a fun read. I support this FAC based on the prose. Best of luck with everything. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Given the existence of File:The Hunger bodysuit at Savage Beauty by Alexander McQueen.jpg, File:The worm corset.jpg needs to explain a bit more why the latter can't be replaced by the former (WP:NFCC#1). Also, "real worms" sounds to me like it means living worms, or does it mean something else? File:Boussu JPG00a.jpg needs a licence for the statue. File:The Hunger bodysuit at Savage Beauty by Alexander McQueen.jpg seems to be in a different section than the only mention of Look 58. ALT text is fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're different garments, obviously. You might as well ask why a photo of the Mona Lisa can't be replaced with a photo of the statue of David. The worm corset is the showpiece of the collection, the central point of most analysis about it, and it's important for the viewer to be able to visually identify it.
It absolutely means living worms, yes. Per the article: "The layers were pre-moulded on a fit model, and McQueen assembled the corset with fresh, live worms two hours before the runway show."
PD-old-70 added
Yes, I think it's reasonable to place it under "concept and creative process" as an example of a garment from the collection. It displays the sexualised styling and the use of natural materials. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, but the article is about the collection as a whole, not just that specific garment. So we need a bit more explanation in the rationale. If the worms were used for producing the dress, without actually being part of one, we should probably say "made with real, living worms" or something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What more rationale do you need? The current one clearly explains that it's a unique item, which has sufficed at every other similar FAC Ive done. As for If the worms were used for producing the dress, without actually being part of one, I honestly have no idea what you mean. I'm sorry. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the rationale at File:The worm corset.jpg it is not clear why it is not replaceable with File:The Hunger bodysuit at Savage Beauty by Alexander McQueen.jpg, seeing as the page is about the collection in general. "with real worms embedded within" sounds like the dress includes living worms, á la Banksy shredder, hence the need for clarification. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my rationale has sufficiently addressed why the image of the worm corset is not replaceable and why NFCC is met. NFCC rationales don't have to explain away the existence of every other possible image on the broader topic, they have to explain why that particular file is acceptable under NFCC, and I believe mine does so.

Your argument that the worm corset image could be replaced by the feather dress image is unreasonable. The two garments are not equivalent in any way. They don't look even slightly alike. They are in different styles, silhouettes, and materials. They have differing significance in the collection - the worm corset is the most notable item from the collection and the focal point of the majority of analysis of it; the feather dress doesn't get a tenth of this attention. It's obvious on the face of things that the picture of the feather dress does not in any way serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the picture of the worm corset.

I still don't understand your objection to the word "real". The worms were living at the time that McQueen put them between the two layers of the corset. Then they died, either from being squished or from starving. The article text explicitly explains this. I don't feel it improves the already-lengthy caption to grind things to a halt and say all that when "real" will suffice until the reader arrives at the full explanation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, how is this one doing? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the stubborn guy who's standing in the way, but I am sure these arguments about File:The worm corset.jpg need to be put on File:The worm corset.jpg too, per Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline which NFC and WIAFA refer to. On the worm caption ... eh, if nobody else sees the problem we can probably leave it as is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, @Jo-Jo Eumerus, does that sufficiently address the rationale? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re "with real worms embedded within": I took it to mean real dead worms, probably because of the use of the word "embedded". Personally I would delete "real" - worms without a modifier means just what it says (we don't say it's a real corset or a real red silk skirt) - but I can just about live with the present wording. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to give the incorrect impression that they're artificial, hence "real". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Look 64, corset made from translucent plastic, shaped around real worms, worn with a red-lined grey jacket and red silk skirt" works better? "shaped" might make it clearer that the worms aren't currently there, and saying that these were real worms makes it a bit more interesting while still being accurate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos and Jo-Jo Eumerus: As a kind of compromise, how about "living worms"? That clarifies that they are real but not dead, so without losing—in fact, perhaps emphasising—the sense of macabre? ——Serial Number 54129 16:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo, I don't understand what you're talking about when you say "the worms aren't currently there". Are we looking at the same image?

The worms were left in the corset. They are still inside it. Do you see the red squiggly bits in the clear plastic corset? Those are the worms. They were alive when McQueen put the corset together. Now they are dead.

SN, I appreciate the suggestion, but "living" isn't quite right, as it's impossible to know whether they died immediately when McQueen assembled the corset or if they lived through the show and died later. (And they're definitely not still alive now). "Real" works for the caption because it doesn't worry about the status of the worms, just that they are not artificial. The article clarifies later when it matters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just a thought. I agree they were, at some point, definitely Schrodinger's Worms. Pace everyone involved completely, but it's ridiculous that the whole thing is being held up over such a minutiae. Coke is The Real Thing. An erstwhile IRA was the Real thing. So why not the bloody worms, who might be Even Better Than the Real Thing :) ——Serial Number 54129 18:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunger (Alexander McQueen collection)[edit]