Talk:History of the bikini/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * Starting GAreview.Pyrotec (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The 1960s-90s section of this article is very weak. There is little about the actual wearing and social acceptance of bikinis. It instead focuses on a selection of bikini moments in film. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, very weak seems like a very personal opinion. The section does describe the mainstreaming of the bikini through popular media, because that's how history went. Perhaps you'd also notice that every section has a different tone (like the antiquity section dealing mostly with archeological finds), varying according to the progress of history in that particular period. If films feature more than songs and theater, it is only because films played a more crucial role. I don't think we need to re-engineer history itself to suit our tastes. Again, actual wearing would need some clarification, as there seems to be quite a few gems about actual wearing, along with cited and sourced commentary and context. Can someone clarify the comment above, so that it can become a basis for some corrective action? Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I have not got to that section yet. If I think that corrective action is needed: (1) It will be defined; and (2) I would put the review On Hold until it is done to my satisfaction. Calliopejen1 is perfectly entitled to express a view, which she has done. However, if you think that you can address her concerns, i.e. lack of information on "the actual wearing and social acceptance of bikinis", then you are free to do so.Pyrotec (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope that I wasn't disrespectful to Calliopejen. I was just bit anxious to get to the specifics. There are tons of tomes written on the bikini. And, I am sure I'll be able to dredge some of it up, if only I was directed to specific gaps, including what should be considered "actual wearing" as to be necessary for a comprehensive coverage. I am sure C was trying to be helpful. It's just my writing skill that probably imparted a not-so-proper tone of voice. Thanks you both. Aditya (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This image goes out, right? Okay. Tagging it for DB then. Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Initial review
The article is of wide scope, its quite readable, its referenced, its well illustrated and it has a good historical view. Its quite long (this is not a criticism), so it has taken me some time to read through it; and I want to go through it again over the weekend. It's at the right level to gain GA-status.

I will check through each section in detail, leaving the WP:lead until last. However, I think that the WP:lead needs some improving: it is intended to be both an introduction to the article and a summary of the article. The first paragraph appears to be the introduction; and the second paragraph contains material that does not appear to be in the article, i.e. I could not find any of this information anywhere other than the WP:lead: "The bikini is the most popular beachwear around the globe, according to French fashion historian Olivier Saillard due to 'the power of women, and not the power of fashion'. As he explains, 'The emancipation of swimwear has always been linked to the emancipation of women',[2] though one survey tells 85% of all bikinis never touch the water.[3] By the early 2000s, bikinis had become a US$811 million business annually, according to the NPD Group, a consumer and retail information company.[4] The bikini has boosted spin-off services like bikini waxing and the sun tanning industries.[5]"

I found the information on precursors, such as Çatalhöyük, Rome & Pompeii interesting and some of that aught to be captured in the WP:lead. I will now check references & in-line citations, images and sections, etc, in a bit more detail.Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some stuff in the lead, especially that sets the context and/or perspective, is not repeated elsewhere, because - (1) it is not deemed necessary; (2) doesn't fit either. But, such a technique is neither prohibited nor unprecedented, as I know. If it is a problem, I am sure it can be fixed. Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Wp:lead is unsatisfactory.Pyrotec (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you guide me on that? Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I happy to do that, but my preference (if you don't mind) is to leave the Lead until the last. However, the problem as I saw it with the Lead, was that it was too short; it did not adequately summarise what was in the article; and, approximately 50% of the lead contained material that was not in the article. I would like to ensure that the article (without the lead) is satisfactory, which is probably is now, and then re-look at the Lead.Pyrotec (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Main review
I'm intending to go through the article section, by section, with the WP:lead being done last. I'm only looking at the prose at this stage, I'll consider the illustrations (if necessary) separately.

This article probably stands a good chance of making it through WP:FAC, but this is a WP:GA review. Most "problems" appear to be relatively minor:


 * Antiquity: earliest bikinis - ✅Pyrotec (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * web references 30 & 31 are either broken or lead to a search page.
 * 30 (NYT) is replaced by 31 (BBC), which seems to be working alright. Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think one of them was the International Herald Tribune, now ref 28, its still broken.Pyrotec (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Herald Tribune cite, now ref 27, fixed. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 19th century to 1930s: Bikini precursors - ✅Pyrotec (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * statements about Annette Kellerman & the use of the images are not referenced, and therefore fail WP:verify.
 * Citations provided. Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In British-English, I find this statement confusing: "Though matching stockings were still worn, bare legs were exposed from the bottom of the trunks to the top of the shorts". It only makes sense if "shorts" and "stockings" are the same and "trucks" and "costume" are the same. Perhaps it makes sense in American-English?
 * Removed the whole sentence. The source of the statement wasn't too reputable anyways. Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference 45 is broken.
 * Broken link replaced. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1940s to 1950s: introduction and popular resistance - ✅Pyrotec (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph contains two referenced quotations from Le Figaro - however it appears to be ref 36.
 * You're right. Now, it has a proper citation in place. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1960s to 1990s: popularity and social acceptance - ✅. Pyrotec (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ref 84 is broken.
 * Broken link fixed. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This section has a lot about the wearing of bikinis by actresses, etc, then goes onto workouts. It's also fairly obvious that seeing women in bikinis was popular with men; but there is no real mention of the sales of bikinis, or proportions of bikinis to other types of costumes once they had attained popularity and social acceptance.


 * Since 1990s: mixed fortunes - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 58 is damaged.
 * Apparently it works. Would you check again? Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 119 is broken.
 * Fixed and formatted, along with 118 and 120. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Transition between last two sections. ✅.Pyrotec (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The transition between these two sections needs some attention. The 1960s to 1990s: popularity and social acceptance section is mostly about (a gross over-summary on my part) actresses boosting their carears by wearing bikinis, then the final section is about leanness / fitness. The Since 1990s: mixed fortunes section then talks about one-piece suits in 1980/90s; the kini family in the 1980s; body image; and then 1990s concerns over "human honour and dignity". I suspect that some of the paragraphs in the last section need to be moved into the penultimate section; and/or the dates of last two sections modified.
 * The last two sections overhauled. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Working on it. But, a little guidance would be very helpful. I have fixed the antiquity part, like you suggested. What else must be there? Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heyyyyy... I thought I managed to fix the rest of the broken links. But, looking at the ticking the case isn't so. Did I fail to fix the rest of the broken links? Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a broken link in Antiquity (now ref 28), which is why that is not ticked; and I have not yet reviewed your latest changes, which is why nothing is ticked after 1940s to 1950s: introduction and popular resistance, but they will be done tonight. I have a day job.Pyrotec (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, what does "Controversies around the bikini around woman's body ideal keep appearing around the globe" mean? (The word 'around' is somewhat overused.Pyrotec (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Lead ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for something with a slightly longer introduction to and a summary of the article. Along the lines: "Alhough the bikini shocked when it appeared on French beaches in 1947, the history of the bikini dates back millennia. Depictions of bikini-like garments appear at the Chalcolithic site of Çatalhöyük, and two-piece bikini-like garments were worn by women for athletic purposes in Greece as far back as 1400 BC. In the modern era, the first functional two-piece swimsuit was designed in 1913 by Carl Jantzen. The modern bikini was invented by French engineer Louis Réard in 1946. He named it after Bikini Island in the Pacific, the site of the Operation Crossroads nuclear test on July 1, 1946, believing that the burst of excitement it caused would be as explosive as a nuclear device. After Jacques Heim had called his bikini precursor the Atome in view of its size, Louis Réard claimed to have 'split the Atome' to make it even smaller. During the second half of the 20th century, it rapidly gained favor, possibly as a result of its appearance in the first Miss World contest and in various iconic films, such as Dr. No and One Million Years B.C.. It also lead on to other 'beach fashion wear' such as the '-kini family'."

"The bikini is not without controversy: the question of 'body image' and who should wear the bikini arise; certain Nations regard the bikini as degrading to women; and concerns over 'safe sun, as well as safe sex' have arisen."

This is almost word for word the current lead, with some additions. You are welcome to modify or change this, but I don't feel that it should be shortened. I was not objecting all that strongly about your original second sentence, as such; just that it was out of proportion in regard to the original first sentence (which needed to be made longer).


 * The GA is now in sight, there are now only two small things plus the lead to fix. Pyrotec (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you hold it for a day more, please? My day job has really got into the way. I promise fix the rest of the issues tomorrow. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem.Pyrotec (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria A wide-ranging, comprehensive, well-referenced article
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article is probably near or at WP:FAC level in terms of its technical content. OK it needs some work in respect of converting refs to the relevant {cite web} {cite book}, etc, format.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article is probably near or at WP:FAC level in terms of its technical content. OK it needs some work in respect of converting refs to the relevant {cite web} {cite book}, etc, format.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article is probably near or at WP:FAC level in terms of its technical content. OK it needs some work in respect of converting refs to the relevant {cite web} {cite book}, etc, format.

I'm awarding GA-status with immediate effect; and suggest that you consider WP:FAC. I suspect, that the article has all the technical content in place, but there will be the "pain" of meeting their more stringent requirements, such as an in-line citation for every statement, and all references in the "proper" formate, i.e. {cite web}, {cite book}, etc for every ref.

Congratulations on the work to date.Pyrotec (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll let you know when it's ready for the next hurdle. Aditya (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)