Wikipedia:Peer review/Cleavage (breasts)/archive1

Cleavage (breasts)


I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get this to a GA status, and if possible a FA status later. It has gone through three bouts of copyediting, four bouts of content editing, and has been checked by editors from about six wikiprojects. The biggest thing left is citation formatting (but that can wait till I submit this for GAN). One big problem I have is shortening the article (does it really need shortening?). Thanks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 09:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You have shown some interest in the past in this article. Some of you I have met, some I didn't. Of those I met, some had a nice experience with me, some didn't. But I believe I can always turn to you to request a review. Don't worry if your review is critical. If you are still active and have some time on hand to waste on this review... please, take a look at the article and tell here how it can be improved further. Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging past editors

P.S. I found you to be a top editor on this article from here and here. Nice tool that. Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dwaipayanc

 * In Culture section, "In many cultures, men typically find female breasts attractive". This sentence likely underestimates prevalence of such culture. Heterosexual men finding female breasts attractive is likely universal, and not just in "many cultures".


 * The second sentence, "In these cultures, women use décolletage that exposes cleavage to enhance their physical and sexual attractiveness, and to improve their sense of femininity". Is this practice among women only prevalent among those cultures? Unlikely. Perhaps this would be more true "Sometimes women use..." rather than pointing to "in those cultures".


 * In a subsequent sentence "According to Kinsey Reports, most men derive erotic pleasure from seeing a woman's cleavage" -- this somewhat proves my first point. Attraction to breasts is not so much culture-specific, rather universal.


 * " Among respectable women, displaying any part of the female breast may be ..." That sounds not a good language -- "among respectable women". It may suggest as if women with revealing cleavage are not respectable. You should delete that phrase. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Aditya (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about the statements on universality. In this interview with Florence Williams, who wrote a book on breasts that got the Los Angeles Times Book Prize in science and technology, she says: "There’s no doubt at all that a lot of men are really, really attracted to breasts! But it could be that that attraction came later or was secondary, and it’s never really been satisfactorily proven that all men in all cultures across all times are obsessed with breasts." And I'm not sure that they Kinsey Report is a good way to think about this, given that (I think?) all the research subjects were American (though it's actually not discussed in our article on it.
 * It might also be worth checking out the sources here, and also seeing whether any material should link to that page or be moved there on this subject. Jlevi (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But the article doesn't say or imply universality, rather it says "most cultures" instead of "some cultures". BTW, the cleavage article has more scholarly commentary and sources than the brest fetish article about the cultural differences, including Elizabeth Gould Davis (that too more in-depth). Check that article out. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fair. And really nice article! Clearly you've put good thought on this, and I haven't taken a deep look at these pages--this was something of a drive-by comment. Your points are well-taken, and I realize I'm quibbling over something that already works nicely. Jlevi (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. With almost a thousand edits I guess I did put some work into it, albeit with ample guidance from other editors. It would be wonderful if you could take a deeper look and let me know where I may improve the article further. I am looking for feedback. Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Buidhe

 * I have just 2 suggestions. After you fix these, suggest just going to GA directly since the article appears to be in pretty good shape.
 * Too many images causing MOS:IMAGELOC issues, especially in Late modern and Late contemporary sections.
 * Some issues with source reliability:
 * Bolton, Jenny. Boost Your Bust: Female Enhancement —appears to be a self-published book, not reliable.
 * The Sun—tabloid, not RS, even if reprinted in a different newspaper.
 * I would go through and double check, linking publishers if possible to show that the sources are not self-published.
 * Citation formatting is not consistent (the easiest way to achieve this is consistent use of cite book, cite news, cite journal etc.). Some books such as John B. Tebbetts, Augmentation Mammaplasty are cited multiple times using different formatting. If you cite a book more than once, the easiest way to do it is to a) use WP:SFN referencing (see Pelagianism), or 2) use rp template (as in Sorley MacLean), whichever you prefer. Just don't copy the entire citation if possible.
 * If you want to take the article to the next level, I would suggest really drilling down on sourcing, preferring academic/scholarly sources to the lower end publishers or sketchier news/web sources where it's unclear how much editorial oversight there is. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved almost all images and charts to the right. Replaced the Sun ref with two direct articles from Gizmodo and Vice. Removed Jenny Bolton, it is self-published indeed. Cite format is a scary thing for me. I am still trying to get some help for that. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Jlevi

 * In general, real nice work! I'll hone in on one section and move outwards.
 * I'm looking right now at the controversies section. In the paragraph starting "As late as the 2010s, reports from...", a large number of examples are provided. I know that the subject of school modesty requirements in relation to cleavage has been covered in academic sources. I believe that replacing the current series of examples with a more solid source would be an improvement. (I may know one--I'll report back.)
 * The book I thought might discuss this subject does not--it talks more generally about dress codes in the US. Jlevi (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. I'll keep looking for sources. Unfortunately this is not a popular subject like WWII or Tigers, and reliable sources are not easy to find. Not giving up yet. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 14:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The final paragraph in this section could use some clarification in language.
 * "Décolleté dresses were sighted..." doesn't seem particularly related to cleavage in the original book: . In addition, it is a statement made by a single individual regarding those sorts of dresses in particular. This is a passing mention of a peripheral issue to this article, so I might remove this sentence.
 * "Cleavage-typed other presentation of clothed breasts..." could perhaps be rephrased as something like "Various clothing styles that involve cleavage..." In addition, this sentence is quite long and contains several different observations. Perhaps split it up? Perhaps expand 'CBS'?
 * For the last sentence, perhaps redo as: "Twitch, a live video streaming service, banned display of underboobs on the platform in 2020 and released instructions on the amount of cleavage permissible. The Vice citation for this sentence is only a passing mention and weak compared with this one: . I suggest replacing. Huh. Actually, the link I include says this: "To the dismay of people who hate women's breasts, there are no restrictions placed on cleavage". It seems like this ruling had more to do with nudity in general than cleavage in particular, and so perhaps should be removed. Jlevi (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed the Israeli sentence. Split the CBS sentence. Copy edited the first part. Replaced the Vice cite. Not sure about the reports sentence. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 03:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the 'typology' section, and I am not sure it is due. The typology described seems to have been devised in the cited paper, and I see very few citations to it. The weight of this categorization method could probably be strengthened with some sort of secondary source. Jlevi (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Checking what I can do. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 10:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)