Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scanners (Alexander McQueen collection)/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) 4 April 2025 [1].

Scanners (Alexander McQueen collection)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander McQueen's followup to the critically-acclaimed Irere was Scanners, an exile's journey through Siberia, Tibet, and Japan, rendered in rich fabrics and voluminous silhouettes. Critics were by and large impressed with the artistic designs and showpiece elements, although some found the theatre overwhelmed the clothing. The collection has attracted somewhat less retrospective attention than his other shows; what little academic consideration there is of this collection mainly concerns the question of whether McQueen was committing cultural appropriation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]

Source stuff:

  • Some citations are out of order: Check 16c, 16g, 49, 52, 57b, 58b.
    • Fixed, I think, and also I cleared up some duplicate sfns.
  • You give ISSNs for some, but not all, publications. You'll need consistency on this within the cites. Otherwise, sources are consistently formatted throughout the piece - I don't see any other errors. Good use of SFNs.
    • Good use of SFNs. All according to the gospel ;) ISSNs have been removed.

Also, only prose issue I caught:

Support from MSincccc

[edit]

Image review

Comments to follow soon. MSincccc (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Runway show
  • The present caption for the image is-Adina Fohlin wearing the long white cape from her second appearance in Scanners Could "from" be replaced with "for" in this caption?
MSincccc (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text for this image could be rephrased as-
Two black and white patterned minidresses. The left dress has gold accents, while the right dress features a bold geometric design. MSincccc (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a FAC-level image review. A correctly-done image review checks for acceptable/correct licensing, makes sure that non-free images meet the criteria and have appropriate rationales, looks at any other image issues such as size or sandwiching, and confirms that captions and alt-text are present and well-written. You have given no indication that you have done any of the above, either here or at any of the other few image reviews I saw your name on when I checked WP:FAC. I cannot understand your obsession with proposing twiddly little changes that make minimal difference to the meaning of the article, regardless of whether you are at FAC or GAN. Multiple editors have noticed this, including myself, and have asked you to alter your behaviour, with little to no result. I am reduced to begging you to stop. If you insist on doing image reviews, go look at image reviews done by experienced editors and learn what needs to be called out per the FA criteria. Please. You have exhausted my patience, and I am certain that I am not the only one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed the alt text and captions of the images, as well as the licensing for each one. MSincccc (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given your lack of experience in image reviews and what you missed when reviewing the images for the London Monster, can I suggest you leave specialist reviews to people who actually understand WP’s requirements, copyright law and how to review properly. This is a specialist field, not something into which a clueless amateur should bungle their way. Please leave it for people like Nikkimaria, who know what they’re looking at. - SchroCat (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Premeditated Chaos and @SchroCat, Thank you for your feedback. I realise my image reviews have not met the required standard, and I appreciate the guidance. I’ll study experienced reviews, such as Nikkimaria’s, before taking on specialised reviews in the future. In the meantime, Nikkimaria, could you conduct an image review for this article? MSincccc (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alts, captions and formatting are all fine. Licensing is going to be more complicated. Fashion images are tricky because the copyrightability of fashion varies by jurisdiction. Looks like these photos were mostly taken in Canada, where it's dependent on reproduction. Have these pieces been made commercially available?
    File:Adina_Fohlin_at_Scanners.jpg is potentially even more complicated since regardless of the status of the fashion, the photo itself is copyrighted. Do we know where this was taken? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Nikkimaria, thanks for popping by. The two Rendez-vous photos were taken in the US; clothing designs are not copyrightable in the US. The photos from Mythos were taken in Canada, where fashion is not generally thought to be protected by copyright (see for example some blog posts about it [2], [3], [4]). The Adina image was taken in Paris at the Scanners runway show, but McQueen's designs were created in the UK, where fashion is also not subject to copyright ([5], [6]). Of course the photo itself is copyrighted, but the NFCC argument has generally been found acceptable for these images at FAC, as they don't just capture the clothing, they capture the unique and irreproducible performance aspect of the shows. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting the fair-use image cannot be used, just that it's more complicated. The current tagging is appropriate for a copyrighted 3D artwork; if you're arguing the fashion is not copyright-protected, the tagging should be changed (though I'd be interested in any references you have on choice of law in these circumstances?). As for Canadian law, the first link you provided states: "once a useful article has been reproduced with the copyright owner's permission more than 50 times, it will not be considered copyright infringement"; is that the case here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not able to speak to precisely how many copies of each garment were made, because those figures are not public, but they were made by an international brand for mass retail sale, so I think that is a reasonable presumption. As for tagging, I'm using the same non-free tags as I used all the way back from The Widows of Culloden; you did an image review for that and didn't object to the tag, so I assumed it was fine and have continued to use it. I'm happy to swap to something else, both for this and other NFCC runway images I've used. {{Non-free 2D art}} doesn't seem to fit, but maybe {{Non-free historic image}}, since the argument is that the runway shows are unique one-time performances that cannot be replicated? I could also go with plain {{Non-free fair use}}. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]
  • The article contains some red links - will you be creating them soon in the future?
    • Eventually, but even if I were not planning to, redlinks are not prohibited or discouraged.
  • Suggest using IABot to archive web URLs.
    • Attempted, but got a warning saying "High load warning: The bot is currently experiencing a high load. This may cause delays in processing your request. The current estimated lag is 1638 minute(s) and 25 second(s)." Then the page timed out. (Edited to add - have tried again several hours later and got basically the same set of errors, so I don't think this is feasible presently. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]
  • I would avoid using one-sentence paragraphs. Ippantekina (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I generally try to, but individual paragraphs are supposed to deal with individual ideas, and sometimes all you have on a particular idea is one sentence. It's not logical to cram unrelated ideas together just because one-sentence paragraphs (of which there are exactly two) don't look aesthetic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Support on prose Nothing much to add, seriously. Great work! Ippantekina (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • "Academic analysis has considered the question of whether McQueen was engaging in cultural appropriation." Maybe 'Academic analysis has considered whether McQueen was engaging in cultural appropriation.'?


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/Scanners_(Alexander_McQueen_collection)/archive1&oldid=1284000921"