Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Savile Row/archive1

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The article was withdrawn by SilkTork (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2014 (diff).

---

Savile Row

Nominator(s): SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I landed on this version of Savile Row in December 2012, and decided to give it a clean up. I took it to GA in June 2013. Recently I looked at it again as part of a sweep through all GA Places articles, and I feel it is a solid article on a famous London street, so I'd like to see if it can be become a Featured Article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment As a drive-by comment, " where customers have included Lord Nelson, Winston Churchill, and Jude Law" reads weirdly: these seem like a random set of people (Nelson and Churchill aren't well known for being well-dressed, and Jude Law is in unusual company with two of the greatest figures in British history) and I'd suggest cutting this as it makes the article look a bit shallow. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting comment, and thank you. I think those are often quoted in sources to suggest the range of customers as regards type and era: figures from the past, figures from the present, military, nobility, political, the media, the stylish, young and old, etc. There are other names mentioned in various sources, but those three seem to crop up quite often - the disparity and yet iconography is part of the interest. I think when sources are looking to mention a selection of names, shallow is the opposite of what they are looking for. Cary Grant is also mentioned quite often, and perhaps he could be added to balance out the military leaders, but then there'd be two film actors. Perhaps Jude Law could be dropped for Beckham or Jay-Z, who have been mentioned, though not as often as Jude Law. I think the choice of names could go on and on. When sources mention customers, they tend to select three, and I think that's appropriate. There is a tendency to over-list. And any selection is going to displease or be unclear to somebody. Those three are perhaps as good as any. Would Nelson, Cary Grant and Beckham indicate a greater range of customers, or be even more shallow? Would Nelson, Churchill and Prince Charles be more impressive, but leave out the media stars that are strongly associated with the street. Given Jude Law's status as a fashion icon, and an "apparel ambassador", he does seem to be quite fitting, and that's probably why he is chosen so often. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment "The term bespoke as applied to fine tailoring is understood to have originated in Savile Row, and came to mean a suit cut and made by hand..." is referenced to a clearly erroneous quote ("The term "bespoke" originated more than a century ago on Savile Row—which is sometimes referred to as the "golden mile of tailoring"—because after customers chose the bolt of cloth from which they wanted a suit made, the fabric was said to "be spoken for." - nonsense frankly, see the OED) from "Bloomberg Businessweek", very dubious, and should be removed. Bespoke/n and the verb "bespeak" in the sense of commissioning something go back centuries before the street was laid out. Pretty much all middle and upper class (and probably most working-class) clothing was "cut and made by hand" until the 19th century. Generally, the sourcing seems pretty scrappy, and internet-based. There is no shortage of excellent modern books on the history of London, but none are used here. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion of the term bespoke went through a number of variations, which included a more detailed account of the history of the word. In the end, it was felt that most of that could be dealt with in Bespoke_tailoring#Meaning_of_the_term, which is linked from this article, and the relevant part, "The term "bespoke" as applied to fine tailoring is understood to have originated in Savile Row", would be enough. I'm not sure I understand your comment about the source - Bloomberg Businessweek is reputable, and the author, Kate Norton's Businessweek articles are used as sources for books: [1], and [2]. If it is felt that the phrase "The term "bespoke" as applied to fine tailoring is understood to have originated in Savile Row" is not clear enough, I'll look into rephrasing, and bring back some of the definition history. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure she is an RS for writing up a press release or interview on "Nokia's Grand Plans for 2007" (as linked), but that doesn't mean she is a good source re British 19th-century tailoring or etymology, though I'm sure she is faithfully reporting what someone "on the row" told her. Not at FA level. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've reworded. Do you think that works? If not, please directly edit the article to see if we can get it right. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from GabeMc

Lead

• with the arrival of designers like Richard James, Ozwald Boateng and Timothy Everest

like → such as or including

• Traditional hand made bespoke suits

hand made → handmade

• The second sentence of the first paragraph is exceptionally wordy. Please split into two or more.
• The term "bespoke" as applied to fine tailoring is understood to have originated in Savile Row, and came to mean a suit cut and made by hand; though, after a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority in 2008, modern bespoke suits may be made more cheaply by machine, as long as they are still "made to measure".

1) This is a bit wordy, and 2) this seems wildly off-topic for the lead of an article that's about Saville Row.

• Savile Row tailoring

1) You link this twice in the lead. 2) The first one is piped in such a way that it violates WP:EGG. Why not link to Bespoke tailoring? 3) The Savile Row tailoring article contains around 2,200 words, and this article has 829 words dedicated to tailoring at Saville Row. So this article seems to repeat more than 1/3rd of the material at Savile Row tailoring, violating WP:SS. IMO, these two articles should be merged and the combined material brought to FA-quality.

• the Apple office of the Beatles at 3 Savile Row, where the band's final live performance, later shown in the film Let It Be, was held on the roof of the building.

The second to the last clause is off-topic for this article.

• Tailors started to appear in the area in the late 18th century

This is an odd construction, particularly the use of appear. Consider: "Tailors began to open shops in the area in the late 18th century" or similar.

• opened an entrance to his tailoring premises at 32 Savile Row

This is awkward. Do you mean to say that he "opened a tailoring establishment at 32 Savile Row"?

• modernised the style and approach of traditional Savile Row tailoring; a modernisation that

Avoid using "modernized" in such close proximity with "modernization".

• Traditional hand made bespoke suits, as of 2012, cost upwards of £2,000.

This is off-topic for the lead, as the point has next to nothing to do with Saville Row.

• Traditional hand made bespoke suits, as of 2012, cost upwards of £2,000. The term "bespoke" as applied

Why is "bespoke" set in quotes at the second mention in this example but not the first?

• as long as they are still "made to measure"

Per WP:CITE, all quotes need in-line citations.

• The freehold is owned by the Pollen Estate

What's a freehold?

Thanks for that, some useful observations. It's up to you how you do it, but I have a preference for people doing copy-editing directly on the article. If there's an edit I disagree with or don't understand I will raise it here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

opened an entrance to his tailoring premises at 32 Savile Row - I have struggled with this and tried several wordings to get it said quickly and easily. His father had tailoring premises on an adjoining street, and Poole opened an entrance from those premises onto Savile Row. How about: opened an entrance to Savile Row from his tailoring premises in Old Burlington Street? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Freehold. That's a good point. It's a commonly understood word in the UK - but I just looked, and it's a UK only term. I've now linked to the Wiki article, but I may reword to make it clearer to non-UK readers. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Bespoke is a term strongly associated with Savile Row. For many, bespoke means Savile Row, so it seems appropriate to spend a little time to indicate that the word's meaning, as normally understood, has recently had a significant change which impacts on Savile Row both in terms of its association with the word, but also in terms of trade and business. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What are you thoughts on merging this article with Savile Row tailoring? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I created Savile Row tailoring as a split from this article, as there was too much detail on the tailors for this general article on the street as a whole. If readers wish to know more about tailors and tailoring on Savile Row, they have the option to go to that article. And there is room to expand that article further. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

History

• with the arrival of designers like Richard James

like → such as, or including

• In July 1968 the Beatles moved their business

business → company

Elsewhere in the article you favour the use of commas after introductory dates, but here you do not. They are not required, but please make consistent.

• The Beatles' final live performance the final words of the band

Swap one of these "final"s with a "last"

• working in partnership with Westminster Council to protect the street's tailoring heritage

protect → preserve

• the site of what is now No. 1

The convention that I'm familiar with regarding chart positions would render "No." as "number", but maybe this is not as common when referring to addresses.

• occupied by a series of ladies and earls

I'm not certain that readers outside the UK will understand what you mean by "ladies".

• on freehold land known as Ten Acres

Link freehold in the lead and at the first mention after the lead.

• belonging to a William Maddox

I'm not sure the indefinite article is necessary or desirable in this construction.

• The original architectural plan

"Savile Row's original architectural plan"

• which was to have some influence on English architecture in the 16th century

"which influenced English architecture in the 16th century"

• in the court-yard

I'm by no means an expert on hyphens, but I think this one is incorrect.

• which possibly established the current appearance of the façade

Can this be made more clear? "Possibly established" is vague.

• including into Asia, Africa, and the South Pole

I'm also not a comma expert, but the third one looks like a serial comma, which you do not use throughout.

• In 1871, just after the Royal Geographical Society moved into Savile Row

Omit "just" as unnecessary.

• so did the Savile Club. The Savile Club

Savile Club appears three times in a short span. Avoid this repetition.

• called Savile Street; and Irish-born playwright and MP

I'm not sure that semi-colon is the best choice here before a coordinating conjunction.

• When Jules Verne wrote Around the World in Eighty Days, he placed his lead character, Phileas Fogg, in 7 Savile Row

"Jules Verne placed his lead character in Around the World in Eighty Days, Phileas Fogg, in 7 Savile Row"

• It is thought that the affluent and influential nature of the residents of Savile Row attracted dealers in luxury goods.

This is vague. It is thought by whom?

• in an earlier raid that month

Was the raid in the early morning? Consider: "in a raid earlier that month"

• A studio was built in the basement, though was poorly designed, so a new one was constructed in 1971 at an estimated cost of $1.5 million.[24] Various artists, including the Beatles, Badfinger, and Mary Hopkin, recorded in the basement studio there until it closed in May 1975.

This seems to imply that the Beatles recorded there after the 1971 remodel, which is of course not possible as they broke up in 1970.

• as they were stopped performing by the police

"as the police stopped their performance"

• with the arrival of designers like Richard James

like → such as, or including

• Some tailors had expressed concern in 2005 that an increase in commercial development in the area could lead to the death of the business locally, as tailors, many of whom traditionally manufacture their suits on the premises, in basement studios, could be priced out of the local property market.

I'm not sure how tailors manufacturing their suits in the basement connects with being "priced out of the local property market", which is an economic concern that does not seem related to this specific business practice.

• The association objects to the American retailer Abercrombie & Fitch's store at 7 Burlington Gardens next to Savile Row, which opened in 2007

On what grounds exactly do they object? Because A&F is an American company, or because they do not tailor clothing, or some other reason/s?

In progress ... GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Protect is not quite the same as preserve; the sources use protect, and I think this is because it is felt that traditional tailoring is under attack rather than it is dying. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• No. for number is used several times in the article - it's used when the number alone is given, as in "the Beatles moved into No. 3"; though when the street name is also given, the usage is "the Beatles moved into 3 Savile Row"; this usage seemed to be the most common I found when reading sources, and seemed helpful; however, it could be changed to "number" if it is felt that it is confusing: "the Beatles moved into number 3". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think I've looked into all the copy-editing queries. I think you have a good eye for detail. Can I again suggest that you edit the article directly. I do find this method very slow and difficult. And surely it must be quicker and easier for you to simply edit the article rather than make these lists. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Dead links
• The use of fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of column width
• Retrieval dates aren't needed for Google Books links
• GBooks links can be truncated after the page number
• Given that iUniverse is a self-publishing company, what makes that book a high-quality reliable source?
• FN19: retrieval date
• FN23, 45, 43, 49: ISBN? Check for others
• Compare FNs 33 and 34
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• Be consistent in whether website names are italicized or not
• Compare FNs 51 and 58, and check for other inconsistencies between similar sources
• Use a consistent date format
• FN53, 54: missing italics
• Be consistent in whether books include publisher locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.

thesuitsofjamesbond.com is reliable because of the author Matt Spaiser who is quoted by other sources on the topic of the clothes of James Bond. He is the expert on the topic.

iUniverse. Thanks for that. I've changed the source. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Book cite retrieval dates are not something I use these days - at the time I worked on this article I used a tool that entered them automatically. As they do provide some, albeit minor nonetheless potentially useful, information on when the source was found and that it actively online on that date, I see little value in removing them, though would have no objection to anyone doing so if the dates bothered them. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I've done this. These are convenience links rather than true online sources, and they are not archived by Wayback, so retrieval dates serve no purpose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Compare FNs 33 and 34 - One is a website, the other is a journal, which has the article on the website, both are published by Forbes. The website is marked forbes.com, and the journal is marked Forbes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

On the cite web template when work= is used it puts the name in italics, when publisher= is used it does not. My understanding is that they meant the same thing: the website where the article was published. I have changed them all to publisher= for consistency as requested. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was things like "murrayonhawaii.com" - sometimes these were italicized, sometimes not. Publications like The Independent were properly italicized, as they are works whether online or in print. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a few quick comments since I stumbled here from my nomination:

• FN1: The New York Times is always a work; its publisher is the corporation called "The New York Times Company". I remember it like this: the "work" is an abstract concept, a publication, while the "publisher" is always a legal entity like a corporation or a person. The title of a website, which might be its domain name, is also an abstract concept, so it's a "work".
• PDF should be capitalized since it is an acronym for Portable Document Format.
• I would also suggest harmonizing the titles to use a single case. Some are in Title Case, and some are in Sentence case. Our MOS doesn't have strict rules on this matter, allowing either style, but here it's a matter of consistency and polish. I will note that in the APA style guide, article titles are supposed to be rendered in Sentence case regardless of the original publication's format, and MOS:CT would seem to prefer that we use Title Case. My guess is that unless our MOS is ever modified to explicitly prefer one over the other in citations, we are free to pick, but we should be consistent. Imzadi 1979 → 00:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the work= field. I think when using the title= field I have always stuck with the source, but you're right, Wikipedia's house style should take precedence for consistency. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about PDF - I assumed the template would put it into the appropriate format. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• There is currently some editing taking place on the article which is taking it backward - creating small sections which inhibit reading flow, and causing image clutter with images now spilling over into neighbouring sections. The editor responsible has been approached, but feels that his edits are making an improvement, and he intends to add more images. Rather than engage in what would likely be a protracted editing dispute, I am stepping back. As this FAC has not yet attracted a support comment, and I am taking the article off my watchlist so won't be maintaining it or taking further part in this FAC, I suggest this FAC is closed. Thanks to those who did take an interest and suggested improvements. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.