From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Wonderbra is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 28, 2007.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 19, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
March 20, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article


Please put it back, or at least tell me her name!

This page is considered featured content, and today it is on the main page. Wikipedia is used by school children of all ages. In my opinion having this pornography of a woman wearing a Wonderbra on a featured page destroys Wikipedia's respect and prestige. This picture must be taken down. biblefreak123 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I demand that a photograph of a human female wearing nothing but a Wonderbra be added to the article. 09:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think a picture is a good idea Bsmntbombdood 01:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually IMHO a photo of an actual wonderbra would be good for starters. A photo of someone wearing on will be useful but a photo of the actual bra prefebly in a way to try and demonstrate it's design is more important IMHO. Nil Einne 12:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the wonderbra itself doesn't look anything special, a woman has to be wearing it to confirm the desired effect. -Iopq 01:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not clear[edit]

Towards the 1980’s and into the 1990’s women started getting more comfortable with their sexuality, thus bringing on changes in fashion as well. Clothing became more feminine and the awareness of lingerie became heightened. In 1994 the Wonderbra was introduced and was "one of the most heralded episodes in underwear history." After creating a fashion sensation in the U.K, the Wonderbra Brand made its U.S. debut in 1994 with the Push-Up Plunge Bra. This phenomenon sold at the amazing rate of one bra every 15 seconds, thus becoming the nation’s number one selling push-up bra.

This is not particularly clear. It says in 1994 blah blah blah. But the Wonderbra had been around for a while, 1994 was only when it was introduced in the US. The article seems to suggest this was somesort of worldwide historic event but I don't see any evidence for that. Sure it may have had a big effect in the US but there is nothing in the article to demonstrate that the US introduction was in any way that significant worldwide. The original introduction in the UK (or was it Canada?) would surely better be called the "one of the most heralded episodes in underwear history.". The later introduction in the US was simply a continuation of the phenomena... Also the bit about the 1980's and 1990's seems a bit of out of place. It may have helped make the wonderbra more popular and may be even changed the design of the wonderbra but the wonderbra already existed... Nil Einne 12:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like advertising. I took it out.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 19:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
This description of Wonderbra reads like something that came out of Sara Lee's PR group and basically ignores most of the history of the brand, instead focusing on their post 1994 US launch.
In fact, Wonderbra was a brand trademarked in 1935 by Israel Pilot in the US. He also developed a patent at the time. In 1939, Canadian Lady (now Canadelle) licensed the brand and patent for Canada. At the time, Canadelle (or Canadian Lady as it was sometimes called), was a family business owned by Moe Nadler out of Montreal Québec. The style now known as "The WonderBra" was created in 1961. Louise Poirier did the design, but under the direction of Moe Nadler who made changes. It was the top selling brand there for years. The broader brand included several styles of bras and panties and even expanded to include stockings.
In the 1970's, Moe's son, Larry took over the company and started marketing it aggressively. Larry Nadler licensed the Wonderbra brand in the 1970's to Gossard in the UK. It was also in the 1970's that Larry Nadler, sold the company to Consolidate Foods and stayed on as president for about a decade. He built up the sales so that Wonderbra was both the top selling, and most expensive mass-market brasier in Canada. It was then in the early 1990's that Kate Moss and other's made it famous as a non-surgical means to cleavage. Only after that, did Sara Lee in the US (formerly Consolidated Foods), decide to launch the brand in the US.
The there is an exceptionally rich history on how Wonderbra used advertising in Canada to grow awareness of the brand. One revolutionary step in the late 1960's and early 1970's was to show women wearing the bras, rather than mannequins. I have access to all of the old commercials and I'm tempted to write a narrative history of their development. Some highlights include a commercial that was directed by Richard Avedon. Mattnad

Copyrighted information?[edit]

Isn't direct copying from the Wonderbra site not allowed? *shrugs*

Michas pi 08:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

Failed for the following reasons, consider fixing and resubmitting:

1. multiple external jumps, [1], need converted to standard web refs

Corrected. May need a check from an editor. Mattnad

2. The 1975 TV screen shot is tagged GFDL, but I find that hard to believe, it more likely should have the same tag as the 1974 screen shot.

Corrected Mattnad

3. double check other image tags

All fine. The others are either from US patent office, screenshots, logos, or photos I took myself. Mattnad

4. Refs should never have external jumps, see fn 22 and 23 for what not to do

This I had difficulty fully understanding. I did conform all of the refs to citation templates, but throughout Wikipedia including featured articles, there are many example of reference that have external links. Is this a rule, or a style preference? Mattnad

5. Web refs should have retrieval dates

Done Mattnad

6. Wikilink dates in refs please

Done Mattnad

7. Brassiere should not be in See Also, it's wikilinked in the first sentence

Corrected Mattnad

8. Lead does not summarize the article

Did some minor edits, but wanted to avoid repeating the overview. Mattnad

9. decades should not have a ' and can be wikilinked, your format is not even consistent

Corrected Mattnad

10. Only boldface the title once


12. Many terms can be wikilinked

Did my best to find a balance and added many wikilinks. Mattnad

13. give it a good copyedit

14. Don't use both & and "and", be consistent


15. There should be no space btwn punctuation and a footnote

Corrected Mattnad

16. This: "only 10.3 million women and girls older than 13." should not link to a web site, make it a footnote.

Corrected Mattnad

Sumoeagle179 00:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Much better. I was confused on the links in the refs, don't worry about it. Resubmit for GAC. I defer to a different person to review this time.Sumoeagle179 20:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I'm concerned about is the style of the lead section - it should lay out the key facts, not say 'this article will cover x". You might wish to cut down the overview section and use it as the lead. The Land 10:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. I've given it another bit of editing. Thoughts? Mattnad 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting there but I'd say your current version is too long and detailed! I'd like to see it start with a 1- or 2-sentence definition. "A wonderbra is a type of bra developed in 1960s Canada and famous across the developed world for ..." - followed by one or two paragraphs giving a summary of its history and impact. Have a look at the lead sections of galaxy or any other Wikipedia:Featured articles for an idea of the style. If this can be got right I don't think there's anything to stop this being a GA. The Land 09:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This time I trimmed to the point of a very basic outline of the contents. It's shorter than some of the leads represented on featured articles I checked. I could summarize more, but then I felt I would be leaving out references to major article topics.Mattnad 15:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Brevity is no problem! I've just slightly tweaked it myself - after this basically happy to pass it, good job! :) The Land 21:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Since this section has been mentioned to me in a couple of discussions, I thought I might offer a point of view on the external links to vintage Wonderbra commercials hosted on youtube (and I recognize this may be opening a can of worms). These links were brought up and discussed at length during the FAC process. SandyGeorgia and I also had a nice long discussion about it off stage on her talk page. For some members of the Wikipedia community, links to Youtube are frowned upon because they could be in violation of existing copyrights. This however is a controversial stance, as demonstrated by this extensive discussion on the topic. Out of curiosity, I had a media lawyer friend look into the the status of those commercials. They are probably public domain in the US due to the years when they were aired, that they were foreign (Canadian) and there was no copyright filing or notification at the time (see this example for Night of the Living Dead with technicalities on how parts of US copyright law worked in the past). At any rate, WP:EL guidelines only require us to avoid knowingly linking to a copyright violation. An expectation for anyone to proactively prove content on other sites is used with permission, fair use, or public domain goes beyond the guidelines. Given that these external links add a lot to the article, I would expect that anyone calling for the removal should demonstrate actual, rather than assumed copyvio. Mattnad 16:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Off topic[edit]

On topic, I've added some links for the infamous UK 'Hello Boys' campaign. Don't know where the information about outdoor models came from but it wan't in the source quoted, and besides, all anyone remembers about that campaign in the UK is Eva Herzigova looking at her boobs while men (apocryphally) crashed their cars ...

Off topic, do the other 'Greatest Canadian inventions' need mentioning? I only ask as including the telephone is to call down a shitstorm. OK, that's what the poll voted for, but that's not to say that it's correct. Alexander Graham Bell was a Scotsman who lived in Canada for a bit, but invented the telephone in the US, where he then took citizenship. So it's either a Scottish invention by dint of his nationality when he invented it, or an American one by dint of his location when he invented it and by his later assumed nationality/citizenship. The Canadian claim is highly dubious and having it in an FA is going to bring all sorts of crap your way. Better just to leave it out, eh, as it doesn't directly relate to the WOnderbra (which I didn't know was a Canadialand invention until reading the article just now..... 09:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Having the other inventions gives context and brings some humour to the ranking. I mean, come on, Wonderbra is #5? It says a lot more about how Canadians see their contributions than anything else. If people have a beef with the ranking, they should take it up with the show's producers ;-). Mattnad 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

UK/US advertising campaign[edit]

This section read oddly. The Wonderbra got going in the UK before in the US, and not included (until I just put it in) was the fact that the US campaign was based on the UK one. Logic and chronology therefore suggests that the UK campaign should be dealt with before the US one, so I've moved it. Also, that way the text isn't split UK - US - UK - US like it was before, which also read badly 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Sorry all, but I strongly disagree that this article has reached FA standard. It is not amazingly written by any means —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 03:42, June 28, 2007 (UTC).

Care to point out any examples of sloppy prose? GeeJo (t)(c) • 15:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Is there a picture gallery of wonderbra ?. -- 06:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mechanics of the Wonderbra[edit]

This article does not give a clear explanation of the mechanics of the push-up bra and ow it differs from an ordinary bra. It also conttains an apparent error when it says elastic products were rationed before the outbreak of the Second World War. Rationing was introduced because of the war, not before it —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Explanation of "mechanics" not really needed, given the photograph and name - bra pushes up breasts. Mattnad 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparison picture[edit]

Can someone get two pictures one of w woman with no bra in a top, with an ordinary bra in the same top, and one with a wonder bra in the the same top again? Wolfmankurd 10:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Congrats for making the front page, though the picture at the top was a bit too revealing. Exozero 13:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, we need someone fitter AND how is revealing more 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Revealing what? Skin? Huh? As long as it doesn't reveal the nipple, its FINE.
USe your imagination, Tail 14:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


I was actually surprised by how few edits this article is getting. For such a well known topic, after almost 16 hours on the main page, it has than 140 edits. That's surprising. The only explanation I can come up with is that the article is sufficiently comprehensive that nobody really has anything to add. Raul654 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Content and Style[edit]

Reading the article, I was struck by how much it read like a MBA case study on marketing... then I discovered the references to Henry Mintzberg (the Godfather of the McGill University MBA) and then it all made sense...

Or maybe it's because one of the main authors has an MBA ;-) Mattnad 15:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way, from one MBA to another: well done! ;-) BroMonque 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Motorboat"?[edit]

In the late 1950s "The Motorboat" started traveling to Europe find new styles to bring to the Canadian market.

Is this a reference to Moe Nadler? If so, it's quite unclear to introduce a nickname this way. Zaq 42 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a persistent vandal. Anyone who can block him/her would be appreciated.Mattnad 16:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


There are two pictures of a penis: one flaccid and one erect. Please remove ASAP. --Bdj95 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorted.  ALKIVAR 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically I believe that's one picture containing two different views of the same penis. --Cyde Weys 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still there, anyway...
Looks like someone hacked the page - I don't even see the change in code for it in the history. An admin will have to fix it. It's articles like this that just ask for trouble. Cyberia23 19:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Get that Thing off now!

I sorted it. I won't say how it was done per WP:BEANS. CIreland 19:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, this isn't the least likely page I can think of that would get vandalized with sexual material. Brutannica 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge chunk missing[edit]

from earlier on toady - the section about the UK and US advertising programmes with Eva Herzigova and the Hello Boys campaign in the UK. 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. Standard procedure for an article featured on the main page is to take a diff from just before and just after and work through the changes, keeping any beneficial ones and discarding the dross. GeeJo (t)(c) • 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Ooh bloody hellers, that reads like double dutch. I'll leave it to you experienced types. 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, all it means is looking at this and figuring out what changes made today are worth keeping. GeeJo (t)(c) • 00:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


The Wonderbra as a featured article? Will wonders never cease? Sca 22:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I just wonder if mostly men wrote this. Brutannica 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


If this article is an important part of the Canada portal, why is the article using US spelling, eh?
Varlaam (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wonderbra Women[edit]

There is a separate article listing the various worldwide advertising slogans and spokesmodels used. This information can be pared down and summarized in a short paragraph at the end of the "Worldwide reintroduction" section. I think these articles should be merged. I'm throwing the tag on both articles now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanmccabe (talkcontribs) 15:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I forked off Wonderbra Women to a separate article because there were repeated attempts to add to a list which was frowned upon by GA and FA article reviewers. If we merge them, we might get back to that place. I personally think the list does not meet the level of Encylopedic content, but that's just me.Mattnad (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we compromise? Something like:

Since its 1994 relaunch, Wonderbra has employed spokesmodels... Some of the models, known as Wonderbra Women, :include Eva Herzegova,...
Main article: list of Wonderbra Women.

I'm just spitballing here. If this can be summarized more eloquently, feel free.Brendanmccabe (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Or even, just wikilinked near the end of the 1994 Introduction section. How about this:
Following the 1994 relaunch, the U.S. Wonderbra has expanded from the single push-up bra design to a broader lingerie line. The advertising campaigns have continued to promote celebrity models known as Wonderbra Women. The brand remains popular around the world as a product, and a part of the cultural lexicon.
and then we get rid of the "See also" wikilink.Mattnad (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Throw in Eva Herzegova and maybe Dita Von Teese as examples and I think you've got it nailed.Brendanmccabe (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't you strive for some maturity in an article like this, instead of the teenage boy's point of view. Is there a jock strap aticle comparable in banality and jokey sexual cultural allusions like this article about women's apparel? Why focus so much on women in an immature and unflattering way? is it because most of the Wikipeida editors are teenage boys (or younger)? Mrs.John Doe (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Which part of the article do you find immature and/or unflattering to women? (or is the whole topic). Which parts contain "jokey cultural allusions"? Mattnad (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have remerged this content with this article. Although it is a featured article, I can see no inherant reason that this content should be kept seperate or affect the FA designation. If this decision is in doubt, please revert, remove the merge tag from the Wonderbra Women article, and determine the validity of the content. If it is deemed unsuitable for this article, then it should be taken to AfD as it is likely not notable as a standalone article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)