Talk:Victoria's Secret Fashion Show/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I'll be conducting this review. Please address each item line-by-line and I'll strike them as we go...

Lead

• I think there should be some mention of prominent models in this show. (Klum, Bündchen, Banks, Kurkova, etc.)
  • How is it now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured clothing

• The first paragraph needs a source.
  • I have merged this content with another section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• "In the past, most of the clothing exhibited was not for sale, but in 2005, the show featured the clothing for purchase in the catalog." Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see this info in the source you use here...
  • Unsourced content removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

History

• "The 2004 show was cancelled after the Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy." I think this needs a bit of context. Obviously, you and I know what the halftime show controversy is, but if this is read by someone 50 years from now they might not. Also, the way its worded right now makes it seem like the halftime show is directly connected to the Victoria's Secret show, so some context of why this unrelated event led to this show's cancellation would be prudent. Finally, the link for this source is no good. Could you see if it can be fixed, replaced or dropped?
  • Is this O.K. now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I added just a bit. — Hunter Kahn 13:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• This link is fine but the citation appears messed up. I think its lacking a title? Could you fix it?
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• "In 2006, Victoria's Secret sub-brand Pink made its debut on the runway." This needs a source.
  • The ref that I found is not so great. If you would like the sentence removed let me know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• This link is dead. Can you replace it?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• This link is used to source the whole last paragraph. Although it does cite the bit about the competition and Kylie Bisutti, it doesn't have anything that I can see about Chalotte Stockdale and Todd Thomas, so that will need another source.
  • That content is not so encyclopedic. I removed it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

From the two tables, the following links came back as dead to me: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

• I'm not so sure about using IMDB sites like this, this, this, this, this and this as reliable sources. Can you replace them?
  • The only other source that I know about for this content is www.vsholic.com which is less of a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• I feel a "Criticism" section is needed. [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46910 This source that you use] outlines criticism the show has gotten, including its FCC complaints, cancellation following the Janet Jackson controversy, and the fact taht some critics consider the show "pornographic". I'm sure other sources wouldn't be hard to find.
  • I have added some sources and created a separate section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll place this on hold for now. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 16:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to request a 7 day extension (until the 9th I believe).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No problem. — Hunter Kahn 15:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Checklist

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nice work! That's a pass! — Hunter Kahn 13:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)