Talk:Bra/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

This appears to be a comprehensive article and well referenced. I've now read through it in some detail (and made a few minor corrections) but I've not yet checked any citations.

I suspect that the article will make GA this time round. At this point I believe there are a few statements have need referencing (but don't have any at present) and one or two may be contradictory. I'm therefore going to work my way through the article again, but leaving the WP:Lead until last, and just highlight any "problems" as I go, so if I don't comment on a particular section/subsection that implies that I've not found any "problems". This is likely to take a day or so to do. Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• History -

• Ref 12 (Uplift: The Bra in America. Colleen Gau). This reference looks somewhat wrong: firstly, Amazon gives two author names Jane Farrell-Beck and Colleen Gau but only one is quoted here; secondly, a publication date of 22 Oct 2002 tends to suggest that the reference was a "copy and paste" from a web site (such as Amazon or similar), the book itself would not give a precise day of publication; and thirdly, "pp 264" seems to be the total number of pages in the book not the page number.  Done

...to be continued later. Pyrotec (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 13 ("Choice: Buying a bra". 2005.) seems to be an empty page (white page) and I don't think that it is fully specified.  Done
• The final paragraph, two short sentence is unreferenced, it aught to be (P.S. I can provide one if necessary).  Done

• Its still unreferenced. Pyrotec (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Re-checked, ref was in following graf. Added same ref to graf missing ref.  Done — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• There seems to be some confusion: your latest edit here was applied to the Legal issues section. My comment above refers to the last two sentences "Primitive iterations of a brassiere are depicted in early Roman art in the ruins of Pompeii. These depictions date back to as early as 62 AD." in the History section. Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I too was confused, as the sentence ran alongside an image illustrating the fact. So I found a source and added it. Thanks for your patience in resolving this.  Done — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Construction and fit -
  • Material and styles -

• The following contradicts itself in respect of strapless bras (I've shortened it), since they don't (by definition) have shoulder straps: "Bras are typically made of a fabric ...... The cups may be supported by underwires .... Strapless bras usually use underwire to support the breasts. The underwire shares the breast weight with the shoulder straps.[17] Wirefree bras support breasts using strengthened, larger cups and wider bands.".

• Culture and fashion -

• The first three paragraphs (before the Bras and youth subsection) are all about Western women and, thus, they lack a degree of broadness. It is clear from later in this section, i.e. from the Social pressures and trends and Opposition to bras subsections, that (say) non-Western societies have different views. This difference of view aught to be highlighted in this first (unnamed) subsection, but I have no objections to cross-referring to the later subsections where it is mentioned.

Mentioned in first graf.  Done

• ref 29 (Be Informed when You Put On a Brassiere) is almost a raw web link, it aught to be expanded to include the publisher, and the access date.  Done
• Similarly ref 30 (Why do women wear bras?). added accessdate.  Done

• Types of bras -
  • Social pressures and trends -

• ref 47 (Bryner, Jeanna. "What is the Average American Woman's Bust Size?") appears to have an incorrectly specified web link, it comes up with a 404 error message. Removed dead link. Second ref remains.  Done

...to be continued later. Pyrotec (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Brassieres and security -

• The first sentence, i.e. "The United States Transportation Security Administration recommends that women do not wear underwire bras because they can set off the metal detectors,[79]"...., cites ref 79 to support its claim, but I'm not yet convinced that the report makes such a recommendation. Firstly, Ref 79 is a 39 page report so the relevant page number should be quoted. Secondly, I've found a reference in it to underwire bras but not one that supports this claim, so I'd like to see the evidence.  Done

As these are relative minor points that should be relative easy to address, I'm putting this review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful review. I'll get these fixed in the next 48 hours. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The bot says that this article has been on hold for 21 days now, and there appears to have been no activity on the review page for 10 days. While WP:There is no deadline, I'd like to have this wrapped up before long, if that's reasonably possible. If you need help, please let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I notified reviewer Pyrotec on May 14 that I completed the changes requested. It's ready for review and approval. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Overall comments

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A wide-ranging article on this topic, that is well referenced and well-illustrated. As mentioned above, the Culture and fashion subsection has a strong Western-bias and there is little discussion of non-Western concepts apart from the Opposition to bras sub-subsection. I'm sure how this can be addressed without (possibly) some major changes to this subsection. Presummably, the articles are not worn or discouraged in cultures that disapprove? The subsection is not undully prominant in respect of the whole article, so other then noting this apparent bias in one subsection; the article as a whole is compliant with WP:WIAGA, so I'm going to award GA-status.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   On balance, yes.

   B. Focused:

   Yes.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on bring the article up to this standard. Pyrotec (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)