Talk:L.A.M.B.

Overpriced?

Perhaps it should be noted that L.A.M.B is quite expensive (compared to other clothing stores like Forever 21 or Mervyn's)? I mean, has anyone looked at the site? All the clothes are overpriced. $60 at minimum for a screen t-shirt, $110+ for a sweater or a pair of jeans on average... ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 ^Refill/lol 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That'd be a good thing to include if you can find a source stating that the clothes are expensive. ShadowHalo 23:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"overpriced" is subjective POV. The clothing line is in the same caliber as True Religion, Theory, Rock & Republic, Marc by Marc Jacobs and several other high end clothing lines; all of which are in the same price range as L.A.M.B. while you may personally believe the line to be overpriced, the price range itself is typical for the material and design and craftsmanship. L.A.M.B. is only sold through high end retailers like Nordstrom and sax fifth avenue. The only way it would be worth mentioning in the article is if you can find a source stating L.A.M.B. is overpriced due to comparison with similar brands on the basis of material, the country where the line is manufactured (made in China vs made in Italy or here in the US), import and export costs, design etc. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 07:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, i have been working on the article and i have come across many sources which call the line expensive. Though, i will just mention that the shoes are expensive for now. Luxurious.gaurav 08:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the line is expensive, I own plenty of L.A.M.B. Merchandise. My concern for the article is that- are source actually compairing the quality and price to that of similar designer brands or are they simply stating its expensive because its produced by Gwen Stefani? For instance, (since you mentioned shoes) her shoe line ranges from $99-$500 dollars. The same price range is applied to a variety of brands such as Marc Jacobs, Taryn Rose, Stuart Weitzman, Isabella Fiore etc. If the source point out legit reasons as to why its over priced (for fashion- price is usually dictated by the quality of the material used in addition to the designer label) them I'm all for it. And if the sources DON'T give an exact reason for dubbing the line overpriced, it should be written in the article why Brands of similar quality/price/style are NOT under the same type of criticism. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 04:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I clearly mentioned that i have a proper source which says that the SHOES are expensive. Please see reference number 5. You might be correct on your point, but i found a source which said that the price of the shoes will be heavy on the pocket, so i have added that. Even if we feel that the line ain't very expensive, we can't put that in the article if many sources say that the line is expensive. Luxurious.gaurav 12:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that you don't have a source stating the line is expensive. L.A.M.B. IS an expensive brand, I understand that. My only concern was having the article say something along the lines of "gwen's line is just overpriced-" end of statement without any explaination. In other words- L.A.M.B. it not just expensive simply to be expensive- there are reason's why it is in the price range its in. For instance, as your article states, the sneakers have gold plated charms, which would reasonable make them more expensive than something you can find at Payforless. I did reread the article and I saw your reference and I agree with how you worded it. I was simply pointing out a lot of news critics state L.A.M.B is "overpriced" (which carries a different meaning than "expensive") because they are bias because she is a music artist, whereas Fashion critics have given L.A.M.B. good reviews based on its quality. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 23:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that if sources say that the line is expensive, we have no say. We can't put what we feel. Why are trying to make out logic why the line is called expensive, but whatever happens, sources are the kings. Luxurious.gaurav 10:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to put what I "FEEL" into the article. That's not my point at all. I'm trying to make sure this particular point is impartial- meaning if there is a criticism, that the criticism is explained. If a source gives a criticism without an explanation, that's not a criticism- its an OPINION and opinions are what wikipedia is meant to avoid. I'm in no way attacking you personally, nor am I trying to avoid the issue. I'm just trying to make sure its done correctly. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 02:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I havent had a look at your sources, but what you say is not correct. Just because you have a "source" it doesnt mean you have to believe or follow it blindly. Of course we have a say, as we have the capability to judge whether the source is a viable source or not.FMB 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My source i.e About.com is quite reliable and the critic has mentioned the reason that the shoes are heavily priced, thus not for everyone. And that is what i have put. And yes, i have not come accross any criticism for the fashion line's quality. But, it has been called expensive. You mentioned that other lines are also expensive, but do you think that a person buying clothes will ever say -"Oh, it's Gwen Stefani's line. I don't mind shelling out money." We should not compare the line with ONLY other high class lines. It should be compared overall. I am sure the lines you mentioned would also have been condemned for being expensive. And the only criticism i have put is concerned with the shoes, and the critic has iven the reason. And yes, we do not have our say as far as my experience goes. When it comes to critical reception, we have to find the average of all the reviews and write whether the line recieved "positive", "negative" or "mixed" reviews. We do have the right to judge wether the source is proper or not, but we do not have he liberty to add what we feel as we do not have a source for it! I have tried this before and faced lot of opposition over "adding my own material" during one of the Featured Article nomimations.

And i do know you are not attacking me peronally. I know you are doing it for betterment of wikipedia. Thank you for the precious time you gave to L.A.M.B Luxurious.gaurav 04:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"but do you think that a person buying clothes will ever say -"Oh, it's Gwen Stefani's line. I don't mind shelling out money."

Actually, YES!:) I worked at NORDSTROM for a year and a half and I've heard people rave over her line despite the price. LOL :) -no argument... just felt like sharing that. ^_^ Bookkeeperoftheoccult 07:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was hilarious. But i hope you got my point. We should compare L.A.M.B with all clothing indutries and L.A.M.B does come in the expensive group. And yes, loads of thanks for adding the info box. Thanks! Luxurious.gaurav 08:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, I never stated L.A.M.B. was not expensive. I just didn't want the article to be biased. "Overpriced" would be bias because there are reasons behind the clothing lines pricing. The term "expensive" however is not bias.

I disagree with you on comparing L.A.M.B. with ALL clothing lines- that's not realistic in my opinion. Its like comparing Heavy Metal music to Gospel- they are complete opposites and there is little room for comparison. The same is true for comparing clothing lines. Apparel has a wide variety of catagories and criticisms should reflect that. Its not logical to compare a designer label with a generic label- they are complete opposites. And I'm not speaking as a fan, I'm speaking as a fashion critic and an encyclopedic perspective. My point through all of this has been that the majority of critics that voice an opinion against L.A.M.B. on the basis of price is because they are judging her as a musician rather than as a designer. Also, I believe you have inccorectly used the word condemned. I read all of your sources and they don't condemn the brand for its price, they are simply stating what price range its in. Condemning the brand would mean the critic would have advised NO one to buy the brand based on its price. I think the term noted would be a better word. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 10:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

I've cleaned up the article so far, although I think that it needs more background information. Therefore, I've added an expand tag. FMB 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tripled the article in size. I have not paid much attention to the language now, as i am collecting material. Luxurious.gaurav 10:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I corrected a lot of information and tried to cite sources as much as possible (FancyPantsCity 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

Well, thanks for that, i will be starting a mega clean-up on the 15th of October. Before that i might only add info and revert wrong things. It has to get to GA by the end of October. Luxurious.gaurav 07:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

comments after cleanup

I saw your message on WP:FASHION and did an overhaul of the article. A few remaining concerns: the fashion shows section was kind of weird, and was kind of doing two separate things. In one sense, fashion shows are a spectacle and a publicity stunt (e.g. bouncing cars, and the comments from the NYFW organizer). In another, they're just examples of the line's collections and evolving aesthetic. I might split that up into two sections, with what the clothes look like going into the aesthetics section (which would benefit from an overview of what the clothes look like in general, not just during one specific show) and the cars and that sort of thing going into the promotions section. I also think you need to work on picking better facts to put in the lead so it flows as a summary. I cut it down too short but wasn't finished and was going to add more back later. I think as is it's a bit long considering the article isn't too long to begin with. I need to get to doing more productive things in real life but good luck finishing cleaning this up! Calliopejen1 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for you efforts. But i have some questions:-

• I dont think merging "Promotion and Success" and "Critical Reception" is a great idea. They are two different things and need sepreate mention.
• The latest link to Style.com is not a proper link. It's a page which changes everyday. It's completely odd source.
• The lead has to be a proper summary of the article. The lead should not depend on the SIZE of the article. The number of PARAGRAPHS depend on the size of article.

Indianescence 16:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please give me time. I promise. Thank you so much! Indianescence 11:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

Passed, with some suggestions.

• With the external links, you need to give each one a title, explaining what it is (eg. official L.A.M.B. website, etc.)

 Done

• There are 2 refs in the lead - these should be moved to elsewhere in the article.

 Done

• In the History section, the ref must come directly after the full stop/period, no space in between. Eg "head designer. [5] Goco later"

 Done

• "The bottle of the fragrance." - Could do with a better caption

 Done  Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.^[?]

 Done

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]

 Done

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 ml, use 100 ml, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 ml.^[?]

 Done

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 100 ml.

 Done

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]

 Done

• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • “In the year [of] 2003”

 Done

• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]

 Done

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

 Done You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on L.A.M.B.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120225434/http://www.style.com/vogue/feature/032204/page2.html to http://www.style.com/vogue/feature/032204/page2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220235720/http://blogs.usatoday.com/fashion/2006/09/stefani_tends_t.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/fashion/2006/09/stefani_tends_t.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on L.A.M.B.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114022650/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/living/fashion/s_483192.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/living/fashion/s_483192.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602191815/http://www.ellecanada.com/Beauty/face/splash-dance-gwen-stefani-s-new-fragrance-n239255p1.html to http://www.ellecanada.com/Beauty/face/splash-dance-gwen-stefani-s-new-fragrance-n239255p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on L.A.M.B.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024155530/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/40049-the-sweet-escape to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/40049-the-sweet-escape

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Mixed tense

Some of this article is in past tense with no mention of the business closing. Mystery6666 (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)