Jump to content

Talk:Bikini/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Etymology
  • Five citations after "Réard hoped his swimsuit's revealing style would create an "explosive commercial and cultural reaction" similar to the explosion at Bikini Atoll" seems excessive per WP:OVERCITE. Try grouping these to reduce clutter.

Helped

Four of the aforementioned references uses the "ref name" syntax. Is there any way to group them? If not, what else can be done to reduce clutter? Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since none of those refs were used more than once, I got rid of the "ref name" fields (which is only needed for multiple uses of a ref) and combined them myself Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
History
In antiquity
Replaced with a valued image. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bikini precursors
  • something about the tone of "so that modesty or decency was not threatened" doesn't feel right
Rewritten. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after "1942" from "In 1942 the United States"
Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "superfluous" in "removed skirt panels and other superfluous material" the most encyclopedic word choice?

Helped

"Superfluous" is used here to mean what it technically means - something that is flowing over (super- ‘over’ + fluere ‘to flow’) - very Middle English and certainly a very appropriate description of skirt-like panels. What could be an alternate - Effusive? Exuding? Emitting? Emanating? Please, advice. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably use "extra material" Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with "unnecessary", but "extra" also sounds good to me. Huon (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just found an easier solution - "attachments". Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Modern bikini
  • Six citations right after "almost simultaneously launched their new two-piece swimsuit ranges in 1946" seems excessive per WP:OVERCITE. It might help to group some of the references so that there are only two or three footnotes.
References clubbed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "couldn't" → "could not" per WP:CONTRACTIONS
Fixed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Social resistance
  • "In a 1950 Time magazine interview, American swimsuit mogul Fred Cole, owner of mass market swimwear firm Cole of California, stated that he had 'little but scorn for France's famed Bikinis'" → "In 1950, American swimsuit mogul Fred Cole and owner of mass market swimwear firm Cole of California told Time that he had 'little but scorn for France's famed Bikinis'"
Changed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after "controversy" in "As a result of the controversy the bikini was explicitly banned from many other beauty pageants worldwide"
  • "The Hays Code was abandoned by the mid-1960s, and with it the prohibition of female navel exposure, as well as other restrictions. The influence of the National Legion of Decency had also waned by the 1960s." is unsourced, and the sentence on National Legion influence seems incomplete.
Ref added and copy edited. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rise to popularity
  • I'm not sure if the "Top 10 Bikinis in Pop Culture" should be in list form. Try instead discussing them in prose.
I was considering a few things - (a) since the section is mostly about the impact of pop-culture on the subject, may be a list of the tops from a robust source adds much value; (b) lists that are encyclopedic and well cited are a part of the Wikipedia, embedded within articles or as stand alone lists; (c) most of the entries in the list already have their own articles; (d) a running list inside the prose may be a bit cumbersome to read; and (e) a side bar is visually appealing. Please, advice. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who's" from "young girl who's too shy" should be "who is" per WP:CONTRACTIONS
Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mass acceptance
  • I'd place the time range from "By 1988 the bikini made up nearly 20% of swimsuit sales" towards the end
Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Outside the western world
  • "The 1967 film An Evening in Paris, is mostly remembered today because in it Bollywood actress Sharmila Tagore became the first Indian actress to wear a bikini on film"..... remove the comma, and see WP:RELTIME regarding "Today".
Edited. Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bikini variants
  • I'm not sure if "practical" is the best word choice in "The use of cotton makes the swimsuit more practical"
Removed the entire sentence. It was not making much sense. Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think "major" from "major fashion show" is needed
Edited out. Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "skimpy" really an encyclopedic term?
Replaced with "meager". Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bikini in sport
  • I feel more could be said before the "Beach volleyball" subsection, such as quotes from people who have criticized the trend.
Expanded the top of the section a bit. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Female swimmers do not normally wear bikinis in competitive swimming" is missing a source
Cited. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above note on "skimpy" (used in multiple subsections of this section)
One use of "skimpy" left in there. It is part of a direct quote. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Athletics
  • It's best to merge these short paragraphs per MOS:PARAGRAPHS
Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bodybuilding
  • Add a comma after "1970s" in "During the 1950s to mid-1970s"
Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bikini body
  • Time magazine → Time
Done Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bikini underwear
  • Not sure how encyclopedic "For women, bikini underwear can refer to virtually any tight, skimpy, or revealing undergarment" is
Removed Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bikini tan
  • Combine these two paragraphs as the first is too short per MOS:PARAGRAPHS
  • ""Racing stripes" may refer to the portion of a bikini tan line exposed when wearing one-piece swimwear" needs a citation
Removed Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • FN's 9 and 10: Should read "Time" in italics ✓ Done
  • FN12: Tagged as dubious, and I must agree that it doesn't look high quality ✓ Removed
  • FN25: Needs author and accessdate ✓ Provided
  • FN's 26–28: Need authors, publications, and accessdates ✓ Provided
  • FN's 36 and 37: Reliable? ✓ Replaced with better source
  • FN55: Contains a HARVref error as it tries to cite a book not listed within the article. Install this script to see them. Fixed
  • FN's 100 and 101: The Times of India should be in italics ✓ Done
  • FN102: Hindustan Times should be in italics ✓ Done
  • FN110: Daily Mail is highly unreliable Removed. This is a summary of the table that follows. Doesn't event need a citation
  • FN112: Same as FN12 ✓ Removed
  • FN118: Missing publication work ✓ Provided
  • FN133: Should read The Daily Telegraph in italics ✓ Done
  • FN136: Should read The Miami Herald ✓ ✓ Done
  • FN150: BBC News shouldn't be italicized ✓ ✓ Done
  • FN151: Same as FN's 26–28 ✓ Provided. Also rescued from an archived copy
  • FN158: Same as FN133 ✓ Done
  • FN159: Should read The Canberra Times in italics ✓ Done
  • FN161: ESPN should not be italicized ✓ Done
  • FN163: Not really the best quality source
  • FN168: The Guardian should be italicized ✓ Done
  • FN171: Should read News.com.au ✓ Done
  • FN172: The Economic Times should be italicized ✓ Done
  • FN193: Not sure if this is reliable
  • FN200: CBS News shouldn't be italicized ✓ Done
  • FN201: Should read Daily News Record Done
  • FN203: Same as FN110 ✗ Quoting a newspaper to support the fact that the newspaper printed something is a valid use of a historical record. Consider WP:RSCONTEXT. The Mail a proper source here
  • FN204: Should read "Today" in italics ✓ Done
  • FN219: The New York Times should be italicized Done
  • FN221: Unreliable ✓ Ref improved and information edited according to the cite given
  • FN235: Same as FN's 26–28 and FN151 ✓ Provided. Also rescued from an archived copy
  • Some dead links need fixing  In progress

Overall

[edit]
  • Well-written?
  • Prose quality: Almost, could use improvements
  • Manual of Style: Needs a bit of work
  • Verifiable?
  • Reference layout: Not just yet
  • Reliable sources: Decent, but not quite there
  • No original research: Some unsourced statements and dead links need to be addressed
  • Broad in coverage?
  • Major aspects: Very close
  • Focused: Doesn't go off into unnecessary detail anywhere
  • Neutral?: Pretty sure there's no bias
  • Stable?: Looks good
  • Illustrated, if possible, with images?
  • Appropriate licensing: : One image is missing licensing info
  • Relevance and captioning: : All beneficial
  • Pass or Fail?: On hold for seven days, I don't think there's too many problems
Getting there. I hope I can manage to address all the issues. Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. You've got 25 hours left. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please extend the deadline a little bit? Only a few of the deadlinks are left to be addressed. Will be done in a moment. Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry, but checklinks indicates more than "a few" need addressing. I'm still not sure about the "Top 10 Bikinis in Popular Culture" being in list form, either. While this is being failed for now, but your efforts are commendable and you did well. It could also be worth looking through for any potential room for prose improvement I might've missed before renominating (just a thought). Better luck next time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bikini/GA2&oldid=1146370239"