Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Widows of Culloden/archive1

Add links
From 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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2023 [1].

The Widows of Culloden[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back with another round of work by British designer Alexander McQueen. This time it's his second Scottish-themed collection, The Widows of Culloden (Autumn/Winter 2006), a mature and measured counterpart to the angry Highland Rape collection of 1995. Widows is well-known as some of McQueen's best work for its emotional narrative, balance of artistic and commercial concerns, and the glorious illusion of Kate Moss that closed the show. Although it has been neearly twenty years since its debut, it remains a popular subject of scholarly analysis from all kinds of critical lenses. I hope you find it as haunting as I do. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami[edit]

Reserving a seat. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The link to "Tom Walker" in citation [123] is a disambiguation.
  • It was a typo - should've been Tim
  • Shakespeare's Scottish play Macbeth Does a work's being set in a place make it belong to that place? I realize it is called "the Scottish play", but one imagines that it is because it is set in Scotland rather than because it was written by a Scot.
  • The epithet the Scottish play for Macbeth is so well-known that it has its own article. I think it's safe to describe it as Scottish without confusing the reader.
  • McQueen's Autumn/Winter 2005 collection Is there a name associated with this collection? This is a perfect place to sneak in a future Four Award.
  • There is, and it's actually named and linked later as part of a pair with Neptune. Personally I think it makes more sense to name it there as part of a set rather than cluttering up the Concept section with a link to another relatively minor collection.
  • made from feathers and wings of game birds. the feathers and wings
  • Fixed
  • Other authors them as an read an allusion to bird-women in mythology Missing word here.
  • That is such a polite way of writing "PMC was apparently drunk when this sentence was constructed", lol. Fixed.
  • Why is wedding dress linked in #White gown when it is first used in #Notable ensembles?
  • This was an oversight. On reflection I've linked the first appearance and left the second one linked also, as I think both present some utility and they're far enough apart that I don't feel it causes overlinking.

Reading complete. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixes and responses also complete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

Just a drive-by comment to start with: the lead sentence doesn't actually tell me what the subject is. It says it's a collection (of what?) by a designer (of what?) for a fashion house but I have to read between the lines to figure out that we're talking about clothes. Also, while I'm here, JuneGloom07 might find this interesting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Collection" is a common enough term for a bundle of thematically-related clothing presented as a set ([2], under "line") that don't think readers need it spelled out in detail, especially with the context given by "fashion house". What else do fashion houses make but fashion? By analogy, we don't spell out that an album is a bundle of songs issued as a set. I think this falls under the same umbrella. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a distinction between "collection" and "album"; with no other context, most people associate "album" with music but a "collection" could be any number of things. It took me a moment to work out what the subject was (anyone who's met me will tell you that fashion is not my area of expertise!) from the title which is why I mentioned it, but I won't push it if nobody else thinks it's an issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me a while to get back to this:

  • occasionally controversial designs can we say a word or two on what these "controversial designs" were? It's a bit clickbait-y to say there was a controversy without saying what it was.
  • It feels distracting to the point to start picking individual designs, especially when I get into Highland Rape as a specific example of his controversial fashion in the next paragraph. It's not that there was one controversy about McQueen - a large portion of his designs/collections were controversial in some manner.
  • McQueen maintained an interest in contentious periods only the contentious ones?
  • Insomuch as it served as an inspiration for his fashion, yes.
  • first Scotland-inspired collection was the controversial Highland Rape there's that word again ... can we expand on it? If not, can we get rid of it or choose another adjective? Considering the next sentence, I don't think we'd lose anything if we got rid of it.
  • Does the rest of the paragraph, with the accusations of misogyny, not expand on it sufficiently?
  • Not sure we need the link or the quote marks on "greatest hits".
  • Fashion doesn't normally do greatest hits collections, so I'd like to keep the link to make the analogy to a greatest hits album clear
  • Tweaked the wording, how's that
  • hairdresser Eugene Souleiman styled hair a trivial point, but what else would a hairdresser be doing?
  • Oop, oversight from SchroCat's fixes
  • fifty-one ensembles across three broad phases, with each look worn by a different model lose the "with"
  • Done
  • McQueen's work was highly autobiographical [...] focus on both McQueen's and Scotland's history, [...] one his most autobiographical collections can we tighten this and reduce the repetition?
  • It's difficult, because I'm trying to introduce several related concepts and there's only so many words I can use. Namely: A) autobiography was a recurring theme for McQueen, B) of an ouvre that was already very autobiographical, Widows was peak autobiography, C) what exactly made it so autobiographical. I'm also trying to avoid using 4+ refs on a single sentence - right now 2 are supporting his overall tendency of being autobiographical, and 3 are supporting the subjective take that this was one of his most autobiographical collections.
  • Widows served as a counterpart to the controversial Highland Rape okay, we know it was controversial now!
  • I really don't think it's that repetitive. It's stated once when the collection is introduced, and once when it's discussed again, in a portion of the article that contrasts Widows with Highland.

That's about it. Not a subject I'm familiar with but there's nothing obviously missing and it's nicely written. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've responded above - some changes made, some I have more thoughts about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're over-doing it with the "controversial"s. You could comfortably lose two of the three in my opinion. I'm happy with your responses on the rest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell, sorry, I completely didn't see this response until now. Since it's a sricking point, I've lost the second 'reminder' one and replaced the one in the lead with other wording. How's that? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Harry, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing left that's worth holding promotion up for now. I'll gladly support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Antlered_white_gown_from_Widows_of_Culloden.jpg: is the copyright owner listed the owner of the dress design, the photo, or both?
  • The photo. As far as I can tell, fashion designs are not copyrighted in the UK ([3], [4]), but I've added the detail that McQueen is the designer.
  • File:MacQueen_tartan_(Vestiarium_Scoticum).svg: if this 2D pattern was simply copied from the given source it wouldn't warrant a new copyright, but our article on the given source states it is a forgery?
  • I don't see how that would matter for copyright purposes. The book was published in 1842. It was purported to be a book of 15th century designs, which has long been disputed as nonsense by scholars. Despite the book's origins as a bunch of BS, the tartan patterns within it have been adopted as "official" tartans by many Scottish families. But regardless, they're too old to copyright.
  • The forgery issue is more a question of accuracy. As regards copyright, I agree they are too old to copyright - which is why the current tagging doesn't make sense to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically what's happened with the Vestarium is that it was bullshit when it was published, but has become truth with time. There's little evidence that there was ever any such thing as an "official clan tartan". Then the book comes out sounding all official and it really resonates in Scottish culture for various reasons. People start using the clan tartans from the book as though they were true history, and over time, they actually did become associated with their respective clans - an invented tradition, but a tradition nonetheless for close to two centuries now.
    As to the copyright tag, I think it makes sense, since it's not a book scan. It's a replicated form of a non-copyrightable pattern, made by the uploader.
  • If it's not copyrightable, then a replication is also not copyrightable, and cannot be licensed by the uploader. The tagging should instead indicate that it's not copyrightable, if that's the argument being made. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, idk, it's obviously an old enough design that it's well into PD, so I've put a PD-100 tag on it and clarified that that applies to the tartan design and the other tag refers to the SVG version. Does that work? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Donald_Urquhart,_head_stalker_on_Inverewe_estate_01.png needs a US tag and author date of death.
  • I spent like an hour trying to figure out more details about this image, and I couldn't, so I've just saved myself the energy and replaced it with File:-Spying_in_Glenfeshie-_MET_DP148525.jpg, which was created in 1858 so it's well into PD by any stretch.
  • Ditto File:Havisham.jpg
  • Done
  • File:Illusion_of_Kate_Moss_from_Widows_of_Culloden.gif needs a stronger FUR
  • Can you clarify which aspect doesn't suffice? I'm happy to do it but it's hard if I don't know what seems to be missing.
  • Looking particularly at the purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a crack at explaining myself, thoughts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Harpi.PNG: source link is dead, missing author of the original work (and their date of death), needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, can I just confirm all good with the image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause[edit]

Good research for this article, and its nice to see you read Judith Watt's book on him. Some comments to start:

(1) Lead section seems a little long. Not just the five paragraph length which should be reduced to four paragraphs, but some of the wording might be tightened a bit. Let the well-researched article speak for itself a little more.
Hmm. Wound up trimming and merging paras down to 3. You're right, it is better like that.
(2) As I recall, this was among his last 4-5 shows before his death. As such, something should be said about this being not only in the later half of his career of works, but also that it was among his last significant fashion statements prior to his death.
He went on to do another 7 collections actually, not counting the unfinished Angels and Demons collection that was in progress at the time of his death. Several of those were arguably as big or bigger than Widows (much as it pains me to say), so I'm not sure it's accurate to say it was among his "last" significant statements.
That's counting 2 shows per year, covering the last 3-4 years of his life. I'm still thinking its worth a mention that this was among the shows in the last quarter of his entire career. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's counting 2 shows per year. Your initial comment said Widows was within his last 4-5 shows, which is incorrect. I've continued this response below since your #5 addresses something similar. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(3) Is the article really served well by have 5-6 red links throughout the text? Even if you are planning to do some of the other show in the future, could the red links be left out for now. I'm understanding the usefulness of 1-2 red links, but you have more that 5-6 red links.
Redlinks are not prohibited or limited in number anywhere in the MOS, even at FAC, as long as they are to legitimate targets that are likely to become articles (and McQueen is at the level where any given show will hit GNG, even the crap ones no one cares about).
Ceoil is supporting you on this, though too many redlinks make the article have the 'look' of being unfinished or still being in process. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a personal preference of yours that's not found in the MOS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That should get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. Responses above, let me know what you think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(4) In lead section you mention "under his eponymous fashion house." He was fully under contract with Gucci at the time, with his own label supported by Gucci. Should this be mentioned? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it's relevant in the lead, but I've mentioned him selling his company to Gucci in the background section now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(5) "The late McQueen" as mentioned by Ceoil below is I think appropriate. His death was headline news when it happened and its not inappropriate to mention it in the lead. I'm also reading the article about Sarah in New York Magazine last week, and it might have a mention of her use of this collection by McQueen in her subsequent collections which would fit into Legacy here. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to Ceoil, I'm not sure it's relevant to mention his death if it's not relevant to the show. From a random skim of GA/FAs of other works by deceased artists, the fact of their death is typically only mentioned if it's directly relevant (ie a posthumous work or something they rushed to finish before death). In this case we're years before his death with no indication that he was actively suicidal at the time of the show, so I just don't see that it's actively relevant.
I just read the New Yorker article and I don't see a mention of Widows. I see that she visited Scotland as inspiration for a collection, but the article does not directly link that visit to Widows. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that I am joining Ceoil below and listing Support. The article is well written and well researched. If you would like to start to move either the Sarah biography or the Alexander biography towards GAN or FAC at some time then let me know and I can try to join in. I've both read the Judith Watts book and actually saw the Andrew Bolton show from 10 years ago. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate your support. I am probably going to focus on doing more collections rather than try to tackle the McQueen bio or company article - I prefer to write from scratch where possible, plus they would be rather large projects. As for poor Sarah, I don't have any interest in her at all, unfortunately. (I'm also a somewhat useless collaborator owing to my rather erratic attention span and idiosyncratic drafting style.) I am deeply jealous that you got to see Savage Beauty in person. I can only hope that someday it is restaged elsewhere. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil[edit]

I *love* the article, but have some gripes:

  • Dont think the lead is too long, but it could be bunched into four paras (merging "within the glass pyramid...&...Response to). Red-links re fine with me, as they motivate :)
  • I wound up trimming it down to 3 - there was a lot of fat, on reflection.
  • I feel we should mention that McQueen has passed at the opening.
  • In the lead? I'm open to the idea but not sure where it fits.
  • well, of the late British designer Alexander McQueen, or Alexander McQueen (d. 2010)
  • I'm not sure mentioning that an artist is dead is standard on articles about their works. I've never seen it on articles for other works of art unless it's relevant to the art (a posthumous album for example).
  • "harkened back" is twee
  • Removed
  • don't like "comparatively conventional" or "in hindsight"
  • I've altered "in hindsight" but "comparatively conventional" is both accurate and important enough that I'm willing to defend it. Once he got big, McQueen almost never pulled conventional shows, so when he did, it was a big deal, and it made it a bigger deal when he went back to being theatrical.
  • the Kate Moss illusion - illusion not explained until now.
  • This comment is opaque to me, I'm sorry
  • Yeah, my misunderstanding, see now. Getting my coat. Ceoil (talk)
  • Overall the writing is excellent, but more later Ceoil (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • <3

Have read it all (+ trivial edits), and its wonderfully descriptive. Support Ceoil (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ceoil, thank you kindly for your comments. Let me know what you think of my changes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

I'll chip in shortly - although any heavy lifting seems to have been done already! - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple of edits here, most of which are run-of-the-mill MOS tweaks around dashes, ellipses, pp for page ranges etc. Most of uncontroversial and shouldn't raise an eyebrow, but I have set the language to British English, which is a little more than I would normally have done. McQueen was a British designer, this collection was part of his British house and its inspiration is Scottish, so I feel BrEng is an MOS:TIES matter, rather than the anything else. If you disagree, then feel free to change it back, but I think the language variant is appropriate. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're totally right and thanks for taking care of that. It's just carelessness on my part, despite being Canadian I tend to write in American :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "regarded as the highlight of the show": As you've already mentioned the show, you can lose "of the show"
  • Oop, yup.
  • "had an extremely controversial runway show": You don't need the "extremely"
  • My precious adverbs :c It's gone
Background
  • Hugely pedantic, but "a characterisation McQueen consistently objected to" should be "a characterisation to which McQueen consistently objected"
  • Not pedantic, sounds better
Concept
  • "chiffon were sometimes ... left raw": I think you may need to rephrase or explain what you mean by "raw" – I'm trying to understand, but I keep thinking uncooked chicken...
  • Changed, how's that? Basically the edges weren't tidied up with hems the way most garments are, they were just cut and left
Staging and design
  • "show's overall styling, and hairdresser Eugene Souleiman styled hair.[40][50] Makeup artist Charlotte Tilbury styled makeup, which was kept minimal and neutrally-toned.[40][51]" You may want to re-work this a little to get rid of the duplication what sort of states the obvious. "styling...styled..styled" is one part: "styling, and hairdresser...styled hair" (what else is she going to do?!) and the make-up artist ... styled make-up! (Note the BrEng "make-up" for cosmetics)
    It's by no means perfect, but: "McQueen's creative director Katy England was responsible for the show's overall styling; Eugene Souleiman was the hair stylist[40][50] and make-up artist Charlotte Tilbury used minimal neutrally-toned cosmetics." would suffice, or something similar if you can see a way to improve it further.
  • "Production was handled by production duo": ditto
  • Both done.

Done down to the start of "Gothic elements" and I'll pick up from there shortly. It's engagingly and well-written, and there isn't much for me to except try and polish a little bit. – Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic elements
  • "exploration of Gothic literary tropes via fashion": I'm not sure "via" is right here – "through" would probably work better
    Hm, yes.
  • "descendant of Romantic literature focused on fear and death": I had to read this a couple of times to make sure I'd got it right, and I think "... descendant of that part of Romantic literature that focuses on fear and death" makes it clearer
  • I reorganized the sentence to make it clearer - basically, Gothic builds on Romantic's interest in sublime/melancholy, but Gothic focuses on those as they relate to fear and death. How's it look?
White gowns
  • "The antlered gown has been described as a wedding dress in tandem with the chiffon gown worn by Moss.": I'm not sure what this is trying to say, although it may be my natural ignorance coming though
  • Reworded
Other analyses
  • "Australian writer": does her nationality make a difference? No-one else is so identified, so I think it can be safely disposed of without upsetting the Australians too much
Legacy
  • "American actress Sarah Jessica Parker": ditto
  • "British fashion photographer Tim Walker": ditto
  • All 3 of the above snipped.
Museum exhibitions
  • "was prohibited except for soldiers and veterans by the Dress Act of 1746": this should either be "was prohibited by the Dress Act of 1746, except for soldiers and veterans" or "was prohibited, except for soldiers and veterans, by the Dress Act of 1746".
  • Fixed

That's my lot. I'm leaning heavily to support on this, which I found fascinating. I can only hope you follow it up some time with Highland Rape. – SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers SchroCat, should get to these comments within the next couple days. I'm glad you enjoyed the article! I am planning to get to the Highland at some point, but I'm trying to spread out the interesting collections rather than doing them all at once and getting stuck with a dozen C-tier collections to write about at the end. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, managed to sneak it in today. Let me know your thoughts :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good changes and I’m happy to support this now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Guerillero[edit]

Why are these high quality reliable sources

  • Michael Nyman
  • Redfive
  • Above two are both primary sources involved in the production of the "Lee's Sarabande" song and the documentary it was used in. I believe the information is uncontroversial enough that it's not problematic to cite to primary sources.
    Withdrawn --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • LACMA Unframed
  • Doyle New York
  • Another primary source reprorting an uncontroversial (IMO) fact of a sale and the price
    Not my favorite, but I can't find anything in the press that repeats the claim. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadsheet
  • Per their About, the site has an independent editorial team and although they accept tips they do not provide coverage for pay. They have professional editorial standards, including clearly marking sponsored content. A quick search shows they have been cited in reputable-looking books, such as [5], [6], and [7].
    Withdrawn --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • InLove
  • Okay, I give up. This is a print magazine, so I assumed it had some kind of cultural cachet, but the more I look the more I can't find. The death blow for me, I think, is their ad rates - just peanuts compared to a big-name magazine like Vogue or Vanity Fair. I'm going to comment that sentence out for now. Fortunately the exhibition catalog is on order at my local library, but it could be months before it actually gets in, so I'm not going to hold up the entire FA just for that to come.

Also

  • Skogh 2015 should be moved to the books at the end
  • Oops, yup
  • Frances Lincoln Limited seems almost too small of a publisher
  • Abrams vs Abrams Books which sometimes gets linked
  • Fixed
  • Heaton 2007 is missing a publisher and the two DOIs go to the same place
  • Both fixed
  • English 2003 looks like Bloomsbury published it
  • Weird, I was sure I had read A&C. Tweaked

Thats all I got on the sourcing --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, finished my attempts to research InLove and came up with nothing, so I've removed it per the above. The rest I believe you've seen. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PMC, have you finished responding to Guerillero's comments? If so, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, how are we feeling on this? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos and Gog the Mild: I am satisfied by the sourcing --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:29, 27 February 2023 (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/The_Widows_of_Culloden/archive1&oldid=1142184197"