Talk:Underwire bra/GA1

GA Review

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

A couple of initial comments before I look at the artricle in detail:

There's a request for comment tag in the first paragraph of the Health section that needs to be taken care of.
- I've added a citation to take care of that. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear about the copyright status of Brassiere-white.jpg, the second image in the lead. Who is the copyright holder? Has permission to use this image been forwarded from the copyright holder to OTRS?
- It looks like the image is a derivative work based on this image, which was released under a GFDL license as should be noted in this OTRS ticket. That being said, we can also remove the image-- I have no problem with that. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd feel more comfortable if that image was removed, but I'm not going to insist on it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've removed the image for now, and I've also asked on the commons OTRS noticeboard for confirmation of permission to use the image. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the initial comments and I await any further comments/suggestions you have for improving the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned about the tone of this statement from the lead: "There are several different health considerations to be taken into account when using an underwire bra. Conditions such as breast pain, and breast infection while lactating can be caused by regularly using an underwire bra." It reads too much to me like a manual entry. Can we make it more encyclopedic by saying something like " Several health conditions (the "different" seems redundant) have been associated with underwire bras ..."?
- Yes, your suggestion sounds much better. I've reworded the sentence in the lede accordingly. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the logic of mixing notes and citations as in the present References section. If the notes are important then I'd like to see them in a separate Notes subsection.
- As far as I know, there aren't any notes in the article, they should all be references. Perhaps you were looking at references 2 - 6 which are references to US patents. Or am I not understanding what you are referring to? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was actually talking about what seems to me to be an overuse of the "quote" parameter in the {{cite}} templates, often just repeating what is said in the text. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, now I'm following you. I have gotten into the habit of using the quote parameter for two reasons. One is that a short verbatim quote helps in finding a copy of the source online in the event the link goes dead. A lot of news sources seem to remove older articles, so I thought this was helpful. The other reason is that a few of the sources are behind paywalls and I thought including a relevant quote would be helpful for people who don't have access to the resource. Those are my reasons. I have just done a search to see if there are any style guides or Wikipedia policy pages that address the use of the quote parameter, but I can't seem to find anything. What is your opinion on this, and do you think it would be better to remove either some or all of the quotes? Also, can you find any Wikipedia policy/guideline pages that address this question? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand why you've done it, and I'm not aware of any guideline that says you shouldn't do it. Certainly it's not part of the good article criteria anyway, so it doesn't affect the outcome of this review in any way. It's just a personal observation that I prefer to see notes separated from citations as here, for instance. Also, if a citation is behind a paywall, then I still have to take on trust that the quotation is accurate, just as I had to trust that the citation supports what it claims to support. But it's just a personal bias, nothing more, so feel free to ignore it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll consider this point, but I don't want to make a rash decisions, since it'll be a bit of work to go through and remove the "quote" parameter on all the citations. I'm also going to try to find any Wikipedia pages that might help with deciding what to do in this case. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your continued comments on improving this article! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This from Manufacture reads too much like an instruction manual: "If the correct gauge of wire cannot be purchased, a wire-pressing machine can be used to press higher gauge wire into the required lower gauge wire." I'd suggest dropping it.
- Good point. How the manufacturer gets/buys/makes the wire is irrelevant to this article. Removed. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Manufacture section needs to be cited. At present it has only one inline citation, to a commercial site, GlobalSpec (what makes them a reliable source?) which at best covers only the application of the powder coating.
- Another editor added a lot of "how-to"-type information on bra wire manufacturing as you can see in this version. I trimmed it and got it down to what it is now. I will try to source it, although I'm not sure if that is going to be possible. I guess if it can't be sourced, it needs to be removed. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid so, as there are some very specific details in there. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have now removed the entire "manufacture" section and placed it on the talk page, in case any of it can be sourced in the future. In my attempt to source that information, I did find sources that show materials used in underwire manufacture, including steel and nickel titanium. I added the following sentence to the "underwire" section. "Metals used include steel and nickel titanium, a shape memory alloy." — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Health: "There are sources, such as the book Dressed to Kill, that claim that underwire bras can cause or contribute to the formation of breast cancer ..." It's not the book that makes the claim, it's the book's authors.
- I've reworded it to: "The authors of the book Dressed to Kill claim that underwire bras can cause..." — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence from Health needs to be rewritten as it's ambiguous: "Bras with metal underwires should be removed before using an automated external defibrillator (AED) on someone to avoid potential interference that could result in burns." Why should someone wearing an underwire bra have to remove it before using a defibrillator?
- Yes, that is ambiguous. The point is if the patient is wearing a underwire bra, it should be removed before using the AED on them to prevent burns. I've changed it to this: "Using an automated external defibrillator (AED) on a patient who is wearing a bra with metal underwires can result in burns, and the bra should be removed before applying the AED." What do you think? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's fine now. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it I think.

--Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm passing this article now, as I think it meets all of the GA criteria. Congratulations to everyone who's worked on it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.