Talk:In Memory of Elizabeth Howe, Salem, 1692/GA1

GA review

{{atopg

| status =

| result = Passed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:In Memory of Elizabeth Howe, Salem, 1692/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:In Memory of Elizabeth Howe, Salem, 1692/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: {{User|Premeditated Chaos}} 09:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
:a (prose, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|neu}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|neu}}
::
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
:a (reference section): {{GAList/check|neu}} b (inline citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|neu}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|neu}} d (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|pass}}
::
It is broad in its coverage.
:a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|neu}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|neu}}
::
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
:Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|neu}}
::
It is stable.
:No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|pass}}
::
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
:a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): {{GAList/check|neu}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|neu}}
::
Overall:
:Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|neu}}
::

Images

I would suggest adding alt text to the captions of all the images. MSincccc (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
:The non-free images are properly tagged and those in the public domain have a US tag. MSincccc (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Prose

I have read up to the Concept and collection section. I will leave further suggestions later. MSincccc (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:; Runway show

:*{{green|McQueen's longtime collaborator Katy England was responsible for overall styling...}} You could use "His" here since "McQueen" has been mentioned in the previous sentence.

:*{{green|McQueen was McQueen was heavily involved in determining the details of the final look.}} A typo.

:; Reception

:*You could link to the article On-again, off-again relationship in this sentence-{{green|Archie Reed, McQueen's on-again, off-again boyfriend, described the collection ...}}

:MSincccc (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:The images are properly formatted. Comments on the licensing will follow soon. MSincccc (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Source-to-text spot check

Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Note: The nominator has explicitly requested that I refrain from further interaction with them (lest the matter is taken to ANI).

:Relevant conversations may be found here and {{diff|User talk:MSincccc|1281400580|prev|label=here}}. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

=Second opinion: UC=

{{ping|Premeditated Chaos}} I can pick this one up, though I am by no means an expert on fashion. Enjoyed reading the article: there's little to criticise, though see a few comments and queries below. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Green|Irritated reviewers complained that it was difficult to see the designs due to the dim lighting and decried the macabre theatrics for overshadowing the designs}}: I will try not to comment on matters of taste, but I think this one could do with some rewriting for tone and clarity. Was it just the irritated reviewers who found the lighting dim, or did some level-headed ones have that problem too? Likewise, I would suggest that decried falls foul of MOS:SAID.
I've revised, although I think it loses some of the life.
{{green|He was accompanied by his second-in-command Sarah Burton}}: did she have a formal title? "Second-in-command" sounds a bit military for a fashion house.
She was the "Head of Womenswear" at the brand, but the title doesn't really describe what her function was to McQueen - she really was his second-in-command. I used right-hand woman in Angels and Demons (collection), I'll swap to that.
{{Green|The collection's saturated colours would have violated the sumptuary laws in place in Salem during the time of the witch trials, because of the amount of dye required to achieve them}}: I would be very interested in a little more detail on this point (were people banned from owning/using more than a certain amount of dye?), but it's not exactly essential to the article.
I don't know the precise details, and the source doesn't really get into it. [https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/sumptuary-laws-puritan-fashion-colonies-modesty This article] has kind of an overview of Puritan sumptuary laws and the intentions behind them, although it doesn't mention dye specifically.
{{Green|paired with thigh-highs}}: consider thigh-high boots (or similar if needed) as more likely to be understood by a non-fashion audience.
Oop, fixed
{{Green| similar designs from Pantheon ad Luceum}}: not ad Lucem?
God almighty I was laughing at all the people who couldn't spell the stupid collection properly when I was writing that article, and now I'm doing it.
{{Green| McQueen had experimented with hair in Eshu (Fall/Winter 2000), which a coat made entirely from large loops of synthetic hair}}: should which be with, or else which included?
Word added
{{green|The show opened with the song "Red Tape" (1995) by Agent Provocateur. Other tracks included a hard rock cover of the 1956 song "I Put a Spell on You".}}: hardly major, but if we're going to credit the writers of "Red Tape", we should do the same for "I Put a Spell on You".
I disagree. Since we don't have the name of who made the cover, it adds clutter without really adding clarity (I suspect unless I write it really particularly, people will assume that "Screamin' Jay" Hawkins and Herb Slotkin did the cover).
Hm: "a hard rock cover of "I Put a Spell on You", originally written in 1956 by..."? Too much clutter isn't good, but then it's also not a great look to credit one artist but not the other -- especially when it falls out that doing so means we don't name a black artist but do name a white band. Incidentally, [https://web.archive.org/web/20071102103203/https://deaddodo.org/ugugu/2000.02_Now_Dig_This_nr._203_p._26-29_%22Stuart_Colman_presents_Repeating_echoes%22 from what I can dig up], Slotkin didn't have much to do with the actual writing (he was co-owner of the record company), though I'm stuggling to find that in Wikipedia-proof sourcing, and it's by the by here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
I will say I wouldn't have known the race of either artist without looking, and I'm not sure most people would either; that being said I found a compact wording I'm happy with.
{{Green|McQueen typically worked with a consistent creative team for his shows}}: slightly ambiguous: do we mean that he normally kept the same team for all his shows?
Almost always, with minor variations usually in hair and makeup (even then, people tended to show back up here and there). "Typically" hedges it a bit to account for that.
I think there's a possible (mis)reading that we mean "McQueen didn't usually change up his team midway through a show" (but might have had a different team for different shows). Suggest "typically used the same creative team for all of his shows" or similar? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm normally fairly sensitive to possible misreadings, but I think that's a pretty unlikely one. "The same" is less correct, because hair and makeup drawn from the same small group of regulars but often differed per show. Other positions were also inconsistent, mostly in early and late shows - Katy England departs after this one, for example.
It sounds like my "misreading" is actually the correct one (he didn't necessarily have the same people working with him on all of his shows), so no issue here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
{{green|Gainsbury & Whiting handled production. Joseph Bennett, who had designed all of McQueen's runways since No. 13 (Spring/Summer 1999), took care of set design. Eugene Souleiman styled hair, while Charlotte Tilbury handled make-up}}: very minor, but this is a slightly idiosyncratic phrasing, so it raises a small eyebrow to see it repeated twice in the same sentence.
Well, within ~~two sentences~~ one paragraph. There are only so many verbs for "did the thing", unfortunately.
True enough on both counts. Would any of "managed", "oversaw", "co-ordinated" or "supervised" do the trick? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I like oversaw a lot for production. I've gone back and swapped it in to previous articles too :)
{{Green|He told Elle magazine he felt there was no point doing shows without elaborate hair and make-up}}: I think it would help to say when he gave this quotation (before/during/after the shows?)
Sure, done
Lots of short paragraphs in the "Reception" section: not essential for GA, but is there any way to bring ideas together to create a bit more flow and coherency?
It'll get wholly rewritten when I go to FAC tbh. Reception is always the most annoying thing to do, since it involves so many newspaper searches, so I leave it for last.
Fair enough: definitely an FAC "problem" rather than a GA one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
{{Green|There was praise for designs that "connoted fertility and protection".}}: this quotation needs to be attributed inline.
Done
{{Green|Dolly Jones of British Vogue}}:; {{Green|Bridget Foley of W}} it strikes me that we generally haven't given this kind of introduction to reviewers -- I think it's useful (otherwise, the reader asks "who is Karen Homer?"), and would consider spreading it to the others.
Some are just authors, and I've been told in previous reviews (with apologies, I don't recall where) that my habit of introducing people as authors then immediately saying they wrote XYZ was redundant.
Possibly by me -- I'm not a fan of e.g. "the fashion writer John Smith" -- but I was curious as to why some get "John Smith of Cosmopolitan and others just go by name. There's no problem here as far as GA is concerned. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
{{Green|a green satin parka with fur hood}}: with a fur hood, I think, as this is a description rather than a title.
the "a" before green silk refers to the entire garment as one description, so it seems unnecessary to have another "a" in there.
Not sure I agree: we've got a sentence like "she's walking a black dog with white tail": that's not grammatical, at least in my variety of English. You do sometimes see this kind of phrasing for dishes on posh restaurant menus, but that seems an odd benchmark for style here. Still, above the pay grade of GA. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
{{Green|Archie Reed, McQueen's on-again, off-again boyfriend, described the collection in a 2013 interview as "the start of [McQueen] saying goodbye".}}: I think it might help to promote the footnote here to the text, as it puts a very different spin on this comment. Any detail as to why he said that?
The source doesn't go into detail. My assumption is that Reed is referring to the very dark turn of the show compared to the previous collections, especially Widows & Sarabande. The last time he'd been truly nasty/macabre like this was 2001 with Voss and What a Merry-Go-Round. From here on out, it mostly gets darker, excepting maybe The Girl Who Lived in the Tree.
Forgot to do this earlier but I have now put it in the main text
{{green|the three protagonists of The Crucible}}: who, exactly? At least a few of the people I'd label as the play's protagonist(s) are men.
I don't recall the source being specific, unfortunately. It's back at the library and not searchable on GBooks, so it'll be a few days before I can double check this.
If no luck, consider something like "three female characters from...". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I've swapped it for now
{{green|Esguerra and Hansen interpreted the dresses with beading resembling hair symbolised freedom}}: not quite grammatical: interpreted the dresses ... as symbolising.
Agh, careless rewriting, sorry
{{Green|Three items from Elizabeth Howe appeared in the 2011 exhibition Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty:}}: I think it would help to say where this exhibition was held, and perhaps some of the others.
Done
{{green|McQueen was simultaneously head designer at Givenchy and his own label.}}: not quite grammatical: either at his own label or head designer simultaneously at Givenchy and his own label.
Fixed
{{Green|These sources appear to be in error, as contemporary sources quote Souleiman and Tilbury discussing their respective work backstage}}: this is cited to Bullock, but Bullock doesn't say "these sources appear to be in error, as contemporary sources quote" or similar (as I can see) -- at the moment, this is WP:OR, and needs to be rephrased to avoid passing explicit judgement. It's fine to say that Bullock (can't do "contemporary sources" without an explicit statement to that effect, under WP:SYNTH) mentions talking to those people backstage, but other interpretations are theoretically possible (e.g. that different people did the work on different nights, or that (e.g.) Barber did the work with Souleiman assisting).
Bullock is the contemporary source quoting those people working backstage. A fashion show is only staged once, so the "different nights" theory is not possible, and each of them is described as being pretty clearly in charge of their respective domains. It doesn't make sense that Elle would neglect to mention that either of them was only assisting.
I don't disagree, but technically, unless we have a source saying "these sources appear to be in error", it's OR to say as much. We could simply juxtapose the two facts: "Smith and Jones say that X did the job; contemporary sources credit Y as doing it" -- that would be the lesser "crime" of WP:SYNTH at worst. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Fair, I've adjusted to a wording like that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

==Images==

We have an image of Tutankhamun's mask, but I think we could do with explaining why we've used it in the caption: we hint at the collection having Egyptian elements and ibis wings, but I don't see why this image, in particular, has been chosen, which may fall foul of the MoS requirement that images be more than simply decorative. We mention elsewhere that the designs were particularly inspired by sarcophagi and statuary: this is neither, but perhaps an image of one of those would be better?
Specifically it's pointing at the "blue-and-gold ... looks in the middle of the collection". Tut's mask with the blue and gold stripes is the stereotypical image of Ancient Egypt. Not only are the outfits in question blue and gold, they're blue and gold striped (ie [https://www.vogue.com/fashion-shows/fall-2007-ready-to-wear/alexander-mcqueen/slideshow/collection#17] and the surrounding looks). Visually I think it's reasonable to pick this one. (I've also done similar things at other McQueen articles, basically picking an image as a visual example, and that's been acceptable).
It is: I wondered whether Nefertiti might be (another) obvious comparison, and perhaps a better fit with what we've said in the article. Still, I don't think we can expect McQueen to have been overly fastidious as to exactly which bits of ancient Egyptian culture he was drawing on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Images should have alt text, per MOS:ACCESSIBILITY.
Alt texted

Licences:

:File:There is a flock of yellow birds around her head.jpg: license is fine (strictly, we only need the US PD tag, but the other doesn't hurt).
:File:CairoEgMuseumTaaMaskMostlyPhotographed.jpg: very pedantically, needs a tag for the original work.
Done
:File:Lee Alexander McQueen & Ann Ray - Rendez-Vous 32 (cropped, shopped).jpg: I am not convinced that this one is PD. As I understand it, FoP in the United States only really covers architectural works and works of art that are outside, not works in a museum. It also doesn't generally cover works that aren't permanently in a museum. As the dress itself is clearly not old enough to be PD by default, an image of it is therefore technically under copyright as well. Happy to be corrected, and I can see a fair-use rationale might be easy enough to whip up.
Addressing all museum clothing images here, since it's one argument. Clothing is not considered copyrightable in the US, so that clears us in the broad sense of worrying about all of them being free for the purpose of being uploaded to Commons, and specifically for photos from the Rendez-Vous exhibition.{{parabr}}The photos from Mythos were taken in Canada, where fashion is not generally thought to be protected by copyright, especially items made for mass production as McQueen's were (see for example some blog posts about it [https://www.yorku.ca/osgoode/iposgoode/2009/05/21/does-fashion-need-copyright-protection/], [https://iplaw.allard.ubc.ca/2022/04/15/final-project-lack-of-copyright-protection-in-the-fashion-industry/#_ftn1], [https://andrewsrobichaud.com/fashion-needs-copyright-law/]). Finally, in case it matters, but McQueen's designs were created in the UK, where fashion is also not subject to copyright ([https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2014/03/article_0007.html], [https://www.thefashionlaw.com/resource-center/united-kingdom-legal-protections-for-fashion/])
:File:1963 Cleopatra trailer screenshot (35) (cropped to Taylor).jpg: are we certain that Fox never renewed the copyright on that film? That seems oddly public-spirited of them. Again, even if we're not, I can see an FUR.
c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:1963_Cleopatra_trailer_screenshot_(40).jpg - bottom comment clarifies the status. TLDR, film trailers are considered separate works from films, and most from pre-1972 were never renewed.
:File:Magdalena Frackowiak in Look 17.jpg: happy with the FUR here.
:File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 2 (tight crop).jpg and :File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 23.jpg: see my comments on the other museum photo: in Canada, a work has to be {{tq|a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building}} to qualify for FoP, and on the face of it, these would appear not to meet that standard, since the museum exhibition was never intended to be permanent.
Addressed above
:File:Barlach Walpurgisnacht.jpg: needs a US PD tag, though it certainly qualifies for one.
Done

Happy with all the copyright here -- thanks for pointing me to those rules about clothing (incidentally, I don't think it does matter, either way, that the products were made in the UK). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

==Sourcing ==

{{Green|His previous two collections, Widows and Sarabande (Spring/Summer 2007), had been melancholy but softly romantic.}}: I can only see the Foley source here, but that has {{Green|other times, a season of pure romance might be followed abruptly by a brooding display of melancholia or outright anger}}. That seems quite different from how we put it (Foley is quite categoric that the romance and the melancholy happened in different seasons): could you provide the relevant chunk of Bethune to support?
"A giant screen showing a film directed by McQueen of locusts, naked bodies suspended in limbo, an owl’s face, and skulls engulfed in flames provided a dramatic backdrop to a show that starkly contrasted with the softer, romantic qualities of his two preceding catwalk presentations." in her summary of Elizabeth Howe. Same page, from her desc of Sarabande: "Sarabande was another collection that epitomized fragile beauty undercut with a sense of decaying grandeur....Darkly romantic and quintessentially feminine..." From the previous page (and I'll go fix this), her summary of Widows: "Despite the emotive subject matter, The Widows of Culloden was a more composed and less aggressive rendering of Scotland’s past...The collection captured a sense of melancholy"
What's the rationale as to which works make it in the bibliography, and which are cited in full in the footnotes?
Books and journals go in the Bibliography and get sfns, anything else gets ref tags.

Spot checks to follow once the above is sorted. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources in general seem to be high quality: online sources are largely to galleries or other institutions with clear credibility, and where mass-market publications are cited (e.g. magazines), they are respected sources of information and commentary on fashion matters, at least as far as my non-expert eyes can tell. Citations look to be formatted clearly and consistently.

Wilson 2015 (and a few others but, I notice, not all): why include the OCLC when we have the ISBN? No problem here, but seems unnecessarily bloated, as the two do the same job.
Autofilled and I never took it out
Sollée 2022: there are page numbers given in the footnotes, but not the bibliography, so I'm not clear whether the print book or the ebook was the source (it doesn't especially matter, but if we know the page numbers, we should include them).
Fixed

A fairly random sample of spotchecks:

Note 11: I would like a smoking gun for "McQueen's work was highly autobiographical", rather than just a compliation of examples of when he used autobiographical elements in his work (WP:SYNTH). I can't find it in Thomas, but also can't access the text for Fairer -- can you provide a suitable quotation from either?
Er, sorry, Thomas makes the general case a few times:
p 85 "[McQueen] would later say that much of his work was autobiographical"
p 148 (with apologies, sfn had p 152 by mistake, not sure what happened there) quotes his friend Ruti Danan saying "all of his work was autobiographical"
p 329 "McQueen's shows, like Galliano's, had always been somewhat autobiographical"
That being said, if you want other sources for it, I can certainly go get some
Note 26: I would slightly amend {{green|She reported that McQueen himself by then considered the execution of the collection "at least partly a mistake"}} -- the quotes make it sound like these are McQueen's words, but they're Foley's. Could do "considered the execution of the collection, in her words, "at least..."?
Sure, done
Note 28: checks.
Note 31: a small quibble: the source says that the image was of the faces of three young women, and I think we should specify that too.
Sure, done
Note 43: Should this be moved back to the comma before? It's not about Watt at all. The source has that the cross "recalls the religious elements of": I'm not sure that's quite the same as "was similar to the collection's religious elements". One could argue that "recalls" is sufficiently vague and sufficiently everyday a word to leave us no choice but to carry it through to our article.
I've tweaked the wording but left the ref in place; I don't like midsentence refs
Note 44a: I am struggling to find an explicit reference to say that it's the nude bodysuit being drawn on here: can you help me out?
"then we were back in the forests of Irere with...tattooed...women in beaded black body stockings". Photo from Irere is on p. 197; compare to the Elizabeth Howe garment from p. 239. Both are nude bodysuits covered in black beaded tattoo-esque patterns. Watt's just worded it to emphasize the black beading rather than mentioning that they have nude fabric as a base.
I think we're chancing our arms a bit there, but on balance I'm happy. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Note 44b: this is all in the source, but page 241 should be added (242 and 243 are pictures, so up to you whether it's a comma or a dash)
Sure, done
Note 44c: checks

All happy here -- passing now. Great work on the article and thank you for a pleasant and collegial review: I've certainly learned a few things from it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)