Talk:Cad and the Dandy

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cad and the Dandy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: —focus 15:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Look pretty good, if it is rather short, but I'll read through it first and see if I have any comments. —focus 15:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Intro

• Premises should be linked
• Savile Row should be linked on the first appearance, not the second
• Intro sounds pov – "high-quality fabrics" should be toned down, and the price comparison reads like an advertisement.
• "who were both made redundant" sounds strange – perhaps, "who's jobs were rendered useless", or something along those lines. The people weren't redundant, their jobs were.
• Link The Guardian

History

• Again, the "redundant" bit sounds strange

Suits

• The first paragraph also reads a bit like an advertisement, but I think it's okay. It would be better if you could find some more reliable sources for that part, though.

Critical response

• The r in response (in the section header) should be lowercase. See WP:MOSHEAD
• Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. Are there any professional reviews you could cite in this section?

References

• look okay, for the most part, but reliable, professional reviews should be added if possible.

Images

• Since the infobox image depicts a copyrighted logo, it should be marked as a free use image appropriately, even if it is from Flickr.
• In the second image, there's not indication that it was released under a suitable license on the blog. If you're the owner of the image, it must have an OTRS ticket, and you have to release it under a suitable license in writing. If not, it should be removed and marked for deletion.

I'm putting this article on hold for a week for changes to be made. —focus 16:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to GA review

Sorry for the delay in getting to this, what with Christmas and New Year, I have been absent from WP for some time. Thanks for reviewing. I have begun to make the improvements requested.

Intro

• Premises should be linked - To premises? Ok, done
• Savile Row should be linked on the first appearance, not the second - Good point, done
• Intro sounds pov – "high-quality fabrics" should be toned down, and the price comparison reads like an advertisement. Agreed. I think some price comparison is fair, as it is included in the cited source, and is a key selling point of the company. Hopefully the new phrasing sounds less like an advertisment.
• "who were both made redundant" sounds strange – perhaps, "who's jobs were rendered useless", or something along those lines. The people weren't redundant, their jobs were. With respect, I disagree. Perhaps this is an example of a UK idiom, but over here it is a well known and much-used expression for a legal measure by which people lose their jobs. I have made a small change which might make it sound better but, ultimately, I think the expression is ok.
• Link The Guardian done

History

• Again, the "redundant" bit sounds strange Not done, as above

Suits

• The first paragraph also reads a bit like an advertisement, but I think it's okay. It would be better if you could find some more reliable sources for that part, though. I see what you mean, but I don't think it is unacceptable. It is a statement of fact, and key to explaining the service provided. If you are happy with it, I would prefer not to change this.

Critical response

• The r in response (in the section header) should be lowercase. See WP:MOSHEAD Done
• Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. Are there any professional reviews you could cite in this section? Definitely agree, however the sad fact is that there are few (if any?) professional reviewers of bespoke tailors. This market is almost entirely covered by amateur bloggers and so citing a blog to support the positive reaction of style bloggers seems fair to me. I will continue to look for better sources, but I think they may be hard to find.

References

• look okay, for the most part, but reliable, professional reviews should be added if possible. Thanks. See above for response to this.

Images

• Since the infobox image depicts a copyrighted logo, it should be marked as a free use image appropriately, even if it is from Flickr.Now done, with an FUR for the logo itself, in addition to the license for the photograph
• In the second image, there's not indication that it was released under a suitable license on the blog. If you're the owner of the image, it must have an OTRS ticket, and you have to release it under a suitable license in writing. If not, it should be removed and marked for deletion.The blog now explicitely releases the image under a CC license.

Very many thanks for your review, and I hope these changes are acceptable. Do let me know if you have any remaining concerns with the areas I have already dealt with, so that I can fix them promptly.--Korruski^Talk 15:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses; the article looks a lot better and I think it now meets the GA criteria, so I will promote it. I have included a copy of the criteria below. Very nice work! —focus 20:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Edits of User:Josephgallos

I question the edits of Josephgallos to this article. He keeps insisting on using biased statements which are not backed up within the references used. Not wanting to get into an edit war, he presently wishes to defend these statements:

Thank you for your message. I note with interest that you have not answered my qustion re your association with the Cad and the Dandy? I have again today reeditted the article, removing unreferenced/claimed "facts" and biased statements, including:

• "at a lower price than the more traditional Savile Row houses." (unref'd)
• "Both having family connections to the tailoring industry" (unref'd)
• "The store is the first on the iconic tailoring street to hand weave a cloth before making it up into a fully finished suit" (only states claimed in ref)
• "With Britain’s bespoke tailoring industry facing an alarming shortage of master tailors..." (blatant bias verging on advert; no ref. Also igores the fact that C&D have hence operate outside the Row's own apprenticeship scheme - should this not be mentioned?)

In light of this, I have questioned his association with the subject of the article, which he has so far not clarified. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfair editing practice and sabotage attempt by User: Trident13

Trident13 unfair editing and sabotage attempt:

In response to Trident13 statement: "He keeps insisting on using biased statements which are not backed up within the references used".

- are the official BBC, The Guardian, CityAM, MacWorld publications not reliable enough published sources for you? Check out the sources and read them carefully. Which particular statements are biased that are not supported by reliable references?

"at a lower price than the more traditional Savile Row houses."

- Check out the reference. Do your research, and verify that the statement is untrue. You can even go to Savile Row yourself and check out the prices.

"Both having family connections to the tailoring industry"

- yes, citation is needed here and will be provided accordingly.

"The store is the first on the iconic tailoring street to hand weave a cloth before making it up into a fully finished suit" (only states claimed in ref)

- This is a fact as supported by the source. Do you have sources that says otherwise to challenge this?

"With Britain’s bespoke tailoring industry facing an alarming shortage of master tailors..."

- Where is the advertisement here?

Also, here's Trident13's did to manipulate things.

This is the original version:

"Based in London, where the company employs 10 tailors in three workshops,[1][2] it also employs an additional 40 in a workshop in China where most of its entry-level, machine-sewn suits are made .[2] All suits are made from British or Italian cloth, and are available either in "machine grade" or "hand stitched".[4]

After initially conducting fittings in rented office space, they came to an arrangement with Chittleborough & Morgan to allow appointments in their shop on Savile Row. In October 2009, the company opened its first permanent store in the City of London.[5]

Cad & the Dandy launched a new flagship store at 13 Savile Row in June 2013.[6] The store is the first on the iconic tailoring street to hand weave a cloth before making it up into a fully finished suit.[7] With Britain’s bespoke tailoring industry facing an alarming shortage of master tailors, the company established an apprenticeship programme in London with young “would-be tailors” joining Cad & the Dandy’s 22 staff members across its three London locations, Savile Row, Birchin Lane and Canary Wharf.[8] Fittings are now conducted across the UK, Europe and the United States.[1]"

Trident13 first edited the paragraph to make it look inconsistent before removing them altogether. In the history section, what we see are his actual edits that he himself deleted.

"Based in London, where the company employs 10 tailors in three workshops,[1][2] it also employs an additional 40 in a workshop in China where most of its entry-level, machine-sewn suits are made .[2] All suits are made from British or Italian cloth, and are available either in "machine grade" or "hand stitched".[4] The company also has an apprenticeship programme.[5] After initially conducting fittings in rented office space, they came to an arrangement with Chittleborough & Morgan to allow appointments in their shop on Savile Row. In October 2009, the company opened its first permanent store in the City of London.[6] They launched a new store at No.13 Savile Row in June 2013.[7] claimed to be the first on the Savile Row to hand weave a cloth before making it up into a fully finished suit.[8] Fittings are conducted across the UK, Europe and the United States.[1]

- I reverted this back to the original version. Trident13 is using misleading statements as an excuse to sabotage the article. Check out the current version after undoing Trident13's edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.81 (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I note with interest, and having asked you on three occasions, that Jospehgallos has commercial associations with the subject of this article from sources 1 2 specifically being the commercially retained SEO consultant for the company. Secondly, tracing the IP address of User:124.6.181.81 using Overlords tool shows that they come from Makati City, Philippines the same location as Josephgallos. When you calm down and actually enage on the debate, and stop using sock-puppetry to support your position, perhaps we can make some progress? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You do not need to track the IP address as my username is already in this talk page. My username is my real name. How about you? You are using code names. I never even questioned your association with Chester Barrie. I've answered your questions regarding your accusations of vandalism. Have you answered my questions? First, you attack the article. You mentioned some information in the article. When you cannot prove your point, you attack the person. Your intention is clear sabotage. You are using WP:BIAS as an excuse to sabotage this article. Josephgallos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephgallos (talk • contribs) 03:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So lets be clear - I have absoluetly no association with the clothing industry, nor Saville Row. I simply over 2years ago cleaned up the Saville Row article from the spam-haven that it was. I am allowed to choose my own user name, which I did. In light of your now admitted BIAS re this article, and your revert to your preferred biased version of this article, I have placed a Vandal3 note on your talk page. Can you please engage in the process and stop acting like a child? I am not suggesting deletion, just that the POV words and avertorial that you wish to keep adding is removed, and that we get back to the facts, OK? Rgds--Trident13 (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

- Let's go back to the bottom line here. Your accusations of vandalism is absurd. Your questions regarding the sources have been answered. Sources like BBC, The Guardian, CityAm, Macworld publications are reliable and content you are trying to delete via blanking attempts were legitimate, accurate, and referenced by these reliable publications.

What you are attempting to do is Wikipedia:Blanking Vandalism - Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephgallos (talk • contribs) 05:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

-Josephgallos

In light of your continued non-engagement, and revert of the BIAS tag to the article after your admitted BIAS, I was left with no choice but to invoke WP:ANI. Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

All other points aside, I consider the use of the bias tag inappropriate. I wrote much of this article, and Josephgallos made relatively small changes. Frankly, most of his edits were just reverting you, so I don't believe that stating that a 'major contributor' has a close association is at all necessary. Whatever cleanup of biased statements is necessary can be done without the need for that. In the absence of any compelling argument to the contrary, I propose to remove it.--Korruski^Talk 11:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I re-added it. You wrote the article 2 years ago, but recently it seems mainly to have been edited with a COI. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the COI, I disagree that Josephgallos is a sufficiently 'major contributor' to justify that banner. Nevermind though, I'm not overly bothered. After all it's Wikipedia - tagging a page fixes everything.--Korruski^Talk 14:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, looking back at when I finished with this article... I can't help feeling it's got worse over the intervening two years, not better :(--Korruski^Talk 14:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually... it wasn't 'over the years' after all, it was largely in this edit [1], where Trident13 made massive changes under the guise of 'removing advert-text'. Many of these are totally unjustified, and making such sweeping changes in one go with no discussion is pretty unacceptable. I'm not sure I can face going through and unpicking the damage, but if I have time I might give it a go at some point.--Korruski^Talk 15:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That was quite a drastic change, but I'm not sure it was entirely unreasonable. Much of what was removed was sourced to the Telegraph article, which is largely an interview format where the founders tell us how utterly awesome they are. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I can see what Trident13 was trying to achieve and I appreciate he was trying to do the right thing, but in my view the end result has been taking it from a perfectly decent and informative article, with (I accept) a handful of questionable sources, to one that is far less useful and, frankly, no more fair and balanced. It's a typical Wikipedia case of not seeing the wood for the trees, in my view. It's also extremely difficult to figure out which changes were justified and which weren't, and to replace information when appropriate, when it's all rewritten in a single edit like that.--Korruski^Talk 15:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Location

I'm pretty sure Savile Row isn't in the City. 78.153.35.53 (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

COI and Good Article Reassessment

Apologies, I see that my note on my previous edit was truncated, meaning the URL doesn't work. This is the correct process for reassessing a Good Article. Simply removing the tag is not appropriate.

Regarding the COI, I've removed this tag as there has been no further discussion since the thread above and the clean-up that went along with it, no COI editing in that time (which is nearly a year, now) and no evidence of actual problems/bias in the article. If there are any substantive problems, feel free to make changes or highlight them here. --Korruski^Talk 12:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)