This review is transcluded from Talk:Blue Gucci dress of Harry Styles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Medxvo (talk · contribs) 18:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Leafy46 (talk · contribs) 03:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a short and sweet article, no idea why it's been in the queue for nearly half a year at this point. Expect preliminary comments shortly and a more in-depth review by the end of the week :) Leafy46 (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Leafy46: thanks so much for taking this on! The "Culture, sociology and psychology" subtopic doesn't seem very active, so I suppose this is reasonable. I was also able to polish up the article a little bit in May, so the delay turned out to be not so negative after all :-) Medxvo (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just finished up my prose review, and will put the article on hold. My concerns mostly center around the lead, which I feel could benefit from a re-write, and focus issues (in addition to the usual wording nitpicks). Of course, all my comments below are suggestions, so feel free to respond to certain ones if you disagree with them. Hopefully this shouldn't be too daunting of a task! Leafy46 (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leafy46: Thanks so much again for the review and for your time. I believe I've addressed your comments! Medxvo (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I believe this article satisfies the GA criteria, and I am happy with the improvements which have been made to it during this review. Thank you for your hard work on this article :) Leafy46 (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• No immediate problems from a first glance
• Earwig shows 31.0% similarity, which is fine. This may be from a touch of WP:OVERQUOTE, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there

  I fixed Owens's part because it was a very long quote, see the difference here. There is also Porter's quote. I would keep it as it is (it isn't too lengthy; less than 40 words), but I would like to know your thoughts. Medxvo (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Porter quote seems alright for me, given that it's quite a striking quote and conveys his scathing tone. What I more mean is something like "Jireh Deng from NPR wrote: 'It's possible to celebrate Styles' stylistic and artistic freedom, while also recognizing that it's not a privilege afforded to everyone in the LGBTQ community.'", given that that quote isn't being used to portray Deng's attitude on the situation, and is instead used as a replacement for exposition. Leafy46 (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Tried to paraphrase it, let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks alright! I've added a few words just to incorporate that "It's possible to celebrate..." part of the original quote, but feel free to undo it if you don't think it's an improvement. Leafy46 (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is definitely an improvement. I tried to c/e it a bit. Medxvo (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No clean-up banners
• Article is stable, no edit-warring
• No previous GA reviews
• All images are licensed and check out — if anything, I might suggest throwing in an image of Styles to the page? This is not a GA thing, so feel free to ignore this, but I think it'd be a strong illustration to add.

  Yes, but I'm not sure where to place an image of Styles... The Background section could be suitable, but I believe it may lead to an MOS:SANDWICH issue. Medxvo (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you place the image on the right side so that it appears beneath the picture of the dress, it should work out without SANDWICH issues. Alternatively, you could get rid of the images of Owens and Shapiro and not need to worry about any overlap issues; this would be my personal suggestion if you decide to make a change, given that having images of those commentators doesn't really add much to the article's content imo. Ultimately though, don't feel too pressured about this :) Leafy46 (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both on the right side seemed weird to me, so I put Styles's picture on the left side and tried to adjust their width. Let me know if it works. Medxvo (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, I think it's better to have a larger image of the dress, given that it's the subject of the article. Perhaps if you put the picture of the dress in an infobox like Template:Infobox clothing item, then the image of Styles on the right side would look less jarring? Like the layout in Swan dress, for instance. Leafy46 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Should be done, I think! Medxvo (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check around 10% of the sources, with numberings based on this revision.

• 9 — See below
  • a) Y Nice
  • b) N I'm a bit on the edge about this one, but I'm leaning towards it not being supported in the text. As far as I can tell, this article doesn't mention this particular dress, and could easily refer to any of the other dresses which Styles has previously worn. The The Times article has the same issue, where it doesn't mention the dress (aside from a picture) — the "collaboration" in the article seems to refer to a cardigan he wore in February 2020.

    Totally agree that it could come across as SYNTH. It was added before I began working on the article, and I had the same thought, but I was uncertain about removing it. Removed. Medxvo (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 19 — See below
  • a) Y Good
  • b) ? The source doesn't explicitly call his look androgynous, and none of the other sources do either. If anything, things like fishnets and tutus strikes me as being purely feminine fashion pieces without masculine characteristics, and thus wouldn't be classified as "androgynous". Please do correct me on this if I am wrong, though.

    I see that this source captioned the tutu image with "Harry Styles is known for his fashion forward, androgynous style". I view androgynous dressing as, for example, a male wearing more feminine clothes, which is further explained here. The sources are just used to confirm that he wore these items. The androgynous thing is just added as an introduction, but I can remove it if you think that it is OR. I also tried to adjust this part a little bit. Medxvo (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this clarification, I think it's okay. I like the change you've made to the wording, and am happy to roll with it. Leafy46 (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 24 — See below
  • a) Y Supported alongside the British Vogue article
  • b) ? Both this article and the Billboard one makes it seem like Styles' appearance on the cover of Vogue was more than just "announced" on that date, but that it actually happened.

    Tried to fix this (changed to "revealed the cover, etc."). Medxvo (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • c) Y This article only says that the dress was "given to him" by Michele, but the fact that he also made it is backed up in the Vogue article. If anything, this citation could be removed for being redundant?

    You're right, removed. Medxvo (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 29 — See below
  • a) Y Seems like everything is backed up between this and The Guardian. Not sure what the WMRF source adds, though

    I think I added it to confirm the "lace gown with a ruffle trim" part, but it's not really needed. Medxvo (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • b) Y Good
  • c) Y Seems good. There are a few paraphrases which are a bit of a stretch — the Harris Reed smoking jacket and high-waisted pants becoming a "dress-and-trouser combination" is the farthest of the bunch — but it seems acceptable for the most part.
• 37 — See below
  • a) Y Note that this is the sentence which I commented could use some paraphrasing above
  • Should be done, I think. Medxvo (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • b) Y I suggest that you source Porter's quote directly to the The Times article it was taken from, but this is more of a stylistic thing than an requirement

    Done. Medxvo (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • c) ? Y'know, I can't actually find anywhere in the article which suggests that Styles became a fashion icon; the title even claims that he "isn't the leader of a fashion revolution". Could you point me to the line in the article which supports this?

    To be honest, I'm not sure why this was added here. Removed. Medxvo (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 48 — Y How fortunate that the part of the article right before the paywall turns out to be the part needed!
• 60 — ? Mostly seems to check out, but I can't seem to find anything about a "2024 exhibition" in particular. Maybe reword to "...was acquired and put on display by the National Portrait Gallery in 2024 as part of their History Makers exhibition..." or something of that nature?

  Changed to something similar, let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Good going! Leafy46 (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This lead section seems to delve quite heavily into the reception and legacy of the dress, but there is very little in it regarding Styles' previous history with fashion and of the design of the dress itself. See, for instance, the lead of Black Christian Siriano gown of Billy Porter, which doesn't even mention the response to the dress until the second paragraph. I feel like a re-write of this first paragraph should be able to resolve this issue
  • Re-wrote the lead, let me know what you think! Medxvo (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I like what you've done! I just did a little shuffling to match the order of information in the lead with the article order, but that's purely stylistic; feel free to revert it if you think it's not an improvement :) Leafy46 (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "The dress was well received by the general public for challenging toxic masculinity and gender roles." — This feels kinda repetitive with the previous sentence imo, since even if the scope is different, it still refers to the discussion of masculinity surrounding the dress. May I suggest replacing this with the line on how the dress "cemented Styles's status as a fashion icon" for a bit of variety in the sort of commentary included in the lead?
  • I agree. Should be done, I think. Medxvo (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a very well-written section as a whole. My primary concern is that this background section may be going a little bit *too* deep, bordering on being an indiscriminate list of Styles' fashion history. For instance, does it improve a reader's understanding of this article to know that Styles wore Yves Saint-Laurent regularly in 2014, or that he met Harry Lambert, or that he became the face of one of Gucci's fragrances? It's certainly much better than how it looked before your revamped the page, and I'm sure that you've already cut down this section a lot, so I'm not going to press too much about this. However, I do feel like there's some work which can be done to help streamline this section, especially since focus is one of the GA criteria.
  • Trimmed some unnecessary details. Medxvo (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps link "dressed androgynously" instead of just "androgynously", given that it points to Androgyny in fashion?
  • Done. Medxvo (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This section looks good :) I've read it over a few times, and have no concerns.

• I don't think you need a citation to prove that the dress received a mixed reception, given that it is a "summary" of sorts for the rest of the section. No harm leaving it in if you choose to, though.
  • I've noticed that some editors view "positive/negative/mixed" as SYNTH unless supported by a source as it doesn't really summarize the journalists' opinions, so that's why I added a source. Medxvo (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "...she wrote although he was not the first male celebrity to wear a dress, he was among the first to do it on a global level." --> "...she noted that he was not the first male celebrity to wear a dress, yet considered him the first to do so on a global level."
  • Done. Medxvo (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "In response to the commotion caused by the dress, The Daily Telegraph's Chris Harvey highlighted other male celebrities who donned gowns before Styles, including Bowie, Brad Pitt, Kurt Cobain, Young Thug, and Iggy Pop." — Is this line necessary? It doesn't seem like Harvey is comparing Styles to these individuals, rather he is just listing out other notable figures who have worn androgynous clothing.
  • I agree that it's also a bit repetitive, removed. Medxvo (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not in the GA requirements, but it would be brilliant if you could combined the The Spinoff quote and the NPR quote together, since both note how this dress owes a lot to the minority communities which came before him (in the vein of grouping reviewer sentiment per WP:RECEPTION)
  • Connected the two sentences by "similarly thought", etc.. because I believe the two sentences are too long to be combined together (70 words combined). Medxvo (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "Several conservative political commentators criticised the outfit for lacking masculinity." — I feel that there's gotta be a better way to put it than "lacking maculinity". Maybe "...for defying gendered fashion standards" in line with its later use, or simply "...for its femininity"?
  • Done. Medxvo (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at a FA like Black Christian Siriano gown of Billy Porter, I can't help but wonder if there's anything else relevant regarding this dress or Styles given how relatively-short this section is. I would request a quick search for the sake of broadness, but otherwise this section looks alright!
  • I couldn't really find any sources/academic sources that discuss the dress retrospectively. They, of course, discuss it as an achievement/one of his best looks/etc... but I couldn't find sources that analyze the impact of the dress. Medxvo (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]