Talk:Angels and Demons (Alexander McQueen collection)

Angels and Demons (Alexander McQueen collection) is currently a Culture, sociology and psychology good article nominee. Nominated by ♠PMC♠ (talk) at 10:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Short description: 2010 British fashion collection

Source dump

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Final outfit from Angels and Demons presented at Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty (2015)

... that the private showings of Alexander McQueen's posthumous final collection Angels and Demons (final look pictured) ended with a whisper saying "There is no more"? Source: A Requiem for Alexander McQueen
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dania Beach Hurricane
- Comment: QPQ donated by theleekycauldron, see User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos#gotta_hand_it_to_ya_:).

Created by Premeditated Chaos (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 59 past nominations.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

New enough, long enough, well sourced as usual, another nice article for the McQueen collection collection with no obvious issues. QPQ has been done by someone else, which is fine. Image is OK to use (although the white ceiling is a bit suboptimal). The hook is interesting, but I do have one comment: it is sourced differently in the article than here; I can confirm the hook from the Telegraph source (both "private" and "There is no more"), but it is not cited in the article. Snippet view on GBooks and Internet Archive confirms the accuracy of the hook content also from the sources cited in the article. It might be worth considering the use of the (more easily accessible) Telegraph source also in the article to avoid confusion with this nom. But in any case, this seems good to go. —Kusma (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review Kusma! I did mean to do that and I completely forgot. I've put it in there now. Cheers! (It just occurred to me - I've never done a date request before so someone please let me know if I need to do anything else - could this be held for March 9th?) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds ok to me (15th anniversary), I have moved the nom to the WP:SOHA. —Kusma (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Angels and Demons (Alexander McQueen collection)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 10:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 06:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will review between 8–10 February. :3 ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 06:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait! Over to you. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 14:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I notice you use both -ised and -ized spellings twice each; either variant is allowed ofc but I think one should be chosen for standardisation.
"Some sources incorrectly report fifteen" – can this be cited? Otherwise it might perhaps be viewed as OR; i.e. how do we know said sources are incorrect?
"was the first livestreamed fashion show" – ever? If so, I would make this fact clearer if possible, or specify that this was specifically McQueen's first livestreamed fashion show.
This sentence is grammatically correct, but "to pivot to an emphasis on" reads a bit awkward/unnecessarily wordy; how about "to pivot toward hand-crafting" or (if you wish to include emphasis) smth along the lines of "to shift his emphasis to hand-crafting"?
"finished collection featured elaborate showpiece designs were planned in a" – seems to be missing a word.
"The shoes were elaborately sculpted with various motifs" – can 'motif' perhaps be wikilinked to somewhere?
"Knox considered" – write the name in full as this is their first mention.
Adoration of the Magi Altarpiece seems to be the only painting without a year.
"thigh-high black leather boots" can be wikilinked to thigh-high boots and replace the wikilink in sentence two of the third paragraph of this section.
"whose carvings can be found in" – recommend > "whose carvings are located in" or "housed in" etc. as more formal as well as generally clearer.
The initial letter of Rue François-Ier is capitalised in prose but not in the refnote; any idea which is correct?
Try to rephrase Writing in retrospect as redundant since all reviews in § Retrospective are, as the name implies, indeed written in retrospect.
"Several contemporary reviews make statements along these lines" – I would do "Several contemporary reviews make statements to this effect".
"The Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met) in New York City own" should end in "owns". Also:
The semicolon in this sentence seems unnecessary; the colons make sense for lists of individual items (like that of the following text in the paragraph), but since only one item is listed here, it would make more sense—and be less wordy—to read as "Look 1, the red and gold bodice and skirt combination, and two unspecified looks."
At the start of the third paragraph in § Legacy, why are the first two looks not numbered?
The fourth source under Wilcox's Alexander McQueen book is an infinite citation loop. In fact, I got trapped in it for five days which is why this review took so long for me to finish it..

Spotcheck

Passes on refs 10, 12, 35, 47 and most of 48, but:

48 (b): does not support the look numbers, as it uses statements like "Another dress" instead.