Wikipedia:Peer review/Bikini/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A lot of work has gone into this article. It kept expanding and eventually three new spin-off articles were created - History of the bikini (a good article), Bikini in popular culture and Bikini variants. The popular culture article split its own spin-offs into Category:Individual bikinis. The variants article in turn split into specific articles for Monokini and Tankini. Work has gone into other related article as well, like Thong (clothing) and Bikini waxing.

The mother article is also one of the older articles of the Wikipedia. It was created on Novemeber 1, 2001, One day after Japan. That was before Abraham Lincoln (Nov 4), France (Nov 4) and California (Nov 17) were created on Wikipedia. (courtesy: TonyTheTiger) If you search for Bikini using google the first return is this article. Page visitation reached its highest in 2011, and the highest number of visitors come from India, Mexico and Spain.

I believe the time has come to give it serious improvement drive to take it to a GA, even an FA level. Please check it for everything that you want - copy, layout, citation, structure... anything.

Thanks, Aditya(talkcontribs) 06:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

In response to your query, I see lots of editorial activity since Talk:Bikini/GA1. Given my extensive suggestions already, I think you should get fresh eyes on the article so I will decline the PR and a GA2. If you get to a point where you think it is a suitable FAC nominee, I will make some comments.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope I have managed address all considerations you raised. Will take another look still. Anyone else interested to do a review? Aditya(talkcontribs) 18:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Review by ResMar[edit]

A well-written piece that's probably one of our more closely studied articles, courtesy of the male gaze.

  • Reference formatting is a chore of chores, but it's still going to be necessary for this article, in particular for those references which seem to be deadlinks.
  • What makes the lexicon humorous? Seems like standard marketingspeak to me, though I may be too cynical.
Cynicism removed.
In antiquity[edit]
  • You should make it more explicit in your opening sentence that the two-piece swimsuit predates the bikini.
  • What about the two-piece swimsuit can be traced to Çatalhöyük?
Çatalhöyük included.
You're still not telling me what about it can be traced there. ResMar 03:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Çatalhöyük and Greco-Roman world elaborated.
  • Where is/was the Roman villa?
Location included.
  • You explicitly mention these pieces as bikinis throughout this section, yet your very next section is titled "Bikini Precursors".
See next section.
Bikini precursors[edit]
  • You immediately jump from Rome to the 1920s; what happened to swimwear in the years between? I think you could do with some reference to the enforcement of female modesty on the beach up through the Victorian era, even if it has to be curt.
The intervening period included.
  • Was the spread of those dastardly bare midriffs as a result of wartime shortages what standardized or legitimatized that feature?
fabric rationing included.
I don't see what I'm looking for: was the reduction in fabric used as a result of the a wartime mandate what legitimized the bare midriff, or was it merely the conclusion of a shift that been slowly developing up to that point?
No causality, only corelation.
This is good enough for a GAN but know that if you want to take this to FAC afterwards you're going to be asked to elaborate. ResMar
  • "In the 1920s swimsuits began to be fashioned from burlap." Why?
The modern bikini[edit]
  • What had led Réard to take up the lingerie business?
  • Are any more details available on why he was unable to find a model? Connect the dots—don't leave the reader interpolating.
Reason included.
  • Perhaps "that bikini design" would be a better choice than "that bikini".
  • What do you mean by "was introduced"?
Introduced > invented.
  • Any details about why it was a hit amongst the men in particular? Again, best not to leave the reader guessing. Heh.
Rewritten the senescence for clarity.
  • Can you be more explicit about whose design ended up where first, and what the relationship between the two was?
Time of invention included.
  • Just wanted to say that this is a gem of a sentence:

In advertisements he kept the bikini alive by declaring that a two-piece wasn't a genuine bikini "unless it could be pulled through a wedding ring."

  • The London Times piece is probably too far gone—nine years after the other reactions—to be of much use. It should be included in the following section instead.
Removed as unnecessary.
  • In June 14, 1948 Newsweek wrote about a "1948 countertrend against the skimpy bikini style... which swept French beaches and beauty contests last year. This belongs in the next section.
Social resistance[edit]
  • What is the significance of Cole of California?
Qualification given.
  • "One writer" for who?
Oh my god! That one writer was the inventor himself.
  • "a crowning that was condemned by the Pope." I'd move this to the "History" subarticle.
Already there in the history article.
  • "The bikini was banned..." I'd change "banned" to "explicitly banned", as I'm sure there was social resistance to their introduction even without a hard nay.
Is that necessary? None of the sources say "explicitly".
From the context I think it's clear that the bikini was implicitly a no-no in numerous other, similar festivals long before its inclusion in this one caused a ruckus. It's not necessary to include "explicitly", but it would be better to do so as it conveys more information in the sentence. However, if you feel that this is too great a leap, feel free to remove it. ResMar
  • "remained prohibited" from when?
  • What is the "National Legion of Decency"?
  • till > until
Edited out.
  • "...G-string..." Wait, this predates the bikini?
This might be a good point to make a note of, however I wouldn't do so unless there was one or two other points where this would be appropriate. ResMar
  • published -> continued to publish.
Edited out.
  • " the contest..." What contest?
Edited out.
Rise to popularity[edit]
  • though a success --> though it was a success
  • This first two sentences puts the cart before the horse, sequentially: you should reverse them or join them. At this point I'm going to stop bothering you with semantic nitpicks, and just go over them myself with an iron when I get around to copyediting.
Copy edited.
  • and in "From Abba to Zoom: a pop culture encyclopedia of the late 20th century", David Mansour went so far as to describe the bikini as a "definitive looks of the 1960s". Please check your source again and see if it would be appropriate to subsume "a" or "the" into the quotation. Otherwise I don't know how strong the statement he is making is.
Just an FYI, but in the source listed, on that page, there is no quotation where Mansour describes the bikini as a "definitive looks of the 1960s" (on page 345). Please advise. JDanek007Talk 20:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In 2011, Time listed Welch's B.C. bikini in the "Top Ten Bikinis in Pop Culture". Elaborate on this sentence to include other famous bikinis that were included in the list, and (presumably) in the "see also" box attached to this section.
  • Marilyn Monroe's polka dot bikini does not appear to have its own article. I'm inclined to remove it from the listing of famous individual bikinis for this reason. If you can find some further sources on this I'd wager you'd be able to make a very popular DYK out of it, in fact.
  • <ref>[ Sharmila Tagore], First Indian actress to wear bikini</ref> You need to format this reference.
  • The costume shocked the conservative Indian audience... Do you mean that it shocked the conservative members of the audience, or that the Indian audience was so conservative that it shocked a conservative audience? Format this sentence with one of these signal words to make this distinction clearer.
  • The last reference for this section is a deadlink.
Bikini variants[edit]
  • The focus of the image used in this section is the statute, not the storefront: I recommend you use another image, even though I personally find this one quite humorous. Encyclopedias are Serious BusinessTM, after all.
There are two other options (storefront with different styles of bikini, from commons) - File:Holt Renfrew Bikinis.jpg and File:Colour Bikinis.jpg
The first photo is too busy; the second one would be perfect if it wasn't for the balloon and perhaps the color filter (not sure if that adds to or detracts from the focus of the image). I'll leave this and come back to it later, it might be necessary to go on an image hunt to find a clean storefront to place into the article. ResMar
  • "A topless swimsuit may still be considered a bikini." who...
That definitely would be a monokini. Not really relevant. Edited out.
  • Modern bikini fashions are characterized by a simple, brief design: two triangles of fabric that form a bra and cover the woman's breasts and a third that forms a panty cut below the navel... I've changed the language of this sentence by calling the panties a single piece of fabric. I believe that this is more correct, as it's a continuous piece of fabric, but I'm double checking here because I'm not entirely sure how the counting here is done—perhaps two cuts of fabric that are then linked?
Typical modern day bikini bottoms are two cuts/pieces of fabric joined w/ a crotch-area seam oriented towards more towards the "rear" than the front of the crotch-covering section of the combined piece of fabric - does that make sense? JDanek007Talk 20:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The reference at the end of the first paragraph is marked as dubious, but it's easily replaceable.
  • The use of cotton made the swimsuit more practical... When was cotton introduced? I've changed "made" to "makes" in the meantime; if you have a year or set of years you can use, change the sentence to "The introduction of cotton in...made the swimsuit..."
  • ...miniminis, slingshot, tie-side and teardrop... What are these? They don't fit the format of the rest of the list.
  • ...and daring, navel-baring cutouts. "Daring" isn't a word to be used outside of quotations when on Official Encyclopedia BusinessTM.
  • The description of the bandeaukini mentions that the Bikini Girls mentioned much earlier in the article are depicted wearing this style. I've added this information into that section with parens, but I think this information would be better included in the form of a note.
Bikini underwear[edit]
  • Swimwear evolved from weighty wool to high tech second skin... This sounds a bit too editorialized, I would consider removing this part of the sentence.
  • The second paragraph in this section needs to be merged into the "History" subsection that comes after.
Sports bikini[edit]
  • In the 2004 and 2008 Olympic Games, inclusion of bikini-clad athletes raised eyebrows. Whose eyebrows? What was the official response (was there one)?
Men's bikini[edit]
  • I don't think the last two sentences of the first paragraph in this section are relevant.
  • ...making them anatomical creations, cut and stitched to outline the body and its sexual characteristics. How so?
Bikini body[edit]
  • In the 1960s etiquette writer Emily Post decreed that... Can we have a precise year?
Bikini waxing[edit]
  • People who wax or shave their bikini areas face the risk of folliculitis, commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus, an infection around the hair follicle,... Complete this sentence, this deserves a full paragraph as well.
  • The "Bikini line" section should be merged into the rest of the section.

More comments forthcoming. ResMar 04:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Working on the feedback. Waiting for more. Aditya(talkcontribs) 08:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Some more comments made. ResMar 03:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Issues addressed. Waiting for more. And, please, don't stop bothering with semantic nitpicks. The copy in there is bad. Trust me. I know. I wrote most of it. Aditya(talkcontribs) 14:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I am going to try and knock out this whole article in one go tomorrow. Like Tony said in the GAN review: this article is in need of a large number of small things, and going through all of them on an article this long is going to take a lot of time. ResMar 02:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok I have completed the review. ResMar 18:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Request: Please use only level-4 or higher subsections to subdivide the review. Use of level-2 or level-3 affects the WP:PR page. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Though the sub-head levels were already levels 4 and higher, and though I couldn't find any way it's affecting the WP:PR page, I am changing to header levels 5 and higher. Aditya(talkcontribs) 03:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)