Wikipedia:Peer review/Speedo International Limited/archive1

Speedo International Limited
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I spent the past three weeks researching, writing, and formatting the article. I'd like the opinions of more experienced wikipedians.

Thanks, Brendanmccabe (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't count me as a real reviewer, I am commenting only on one little area and only from a fast read. One comment is at several places dates (just the year would be fine) would provide important context, there are no dates. Where I noticed this was in the "controversy" section, and also where controversy was mentioned early in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, North8000. However, I'm not sure I follow you. As the author, the controversies seem to be clearly in context to me. Perhaps from a reader's perspective this is unclear. Could you pull a quote or two from the article so I can see what you mean? Thanks, Brendanmccabe (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy to...please excuse the brief note form:

Suggest giving date (just the year needed) on:
 * When the company was renamed to Speedo knitting mills
 * (in Speedo knitting mills section) circa when it was banned from some beaches
 * (in Controversial technology section) when Clare Dennis was nearly disqualified (even though it is a repetition, people will not remember the name from earlier in the article)
 * (in Controversial technology section) circa when it banned from some Australian beaches)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Point by point:
 * *When the company was renamed to Speedo knitting mills
 * Added "The following year" - I hope this is sufficient as I don't want the article to read like a raw timeline.
 * *(in Speedo knitting mills section) circa when it was banned from some beaches
 * If you are looking for a specific occurrence of this ban, that is beyond my researching ability; otherwise, it seems clear to me that since the second paragraph is discussing the suit introduced in the previous paragraph, that the time is clear enough. Am I wrong?
 * *(in Controversial technology section) when Clare Dennis was nearly disqualified (even though it is a repetition, people will not remember the name from earlier in the article)
 * I'm hesitant to change this paragraph. I think that if I date the Clare Dennis incident again, I'd have to date the other controversies in the same sentence. Don't you think that would bog down the intro? Again, trying to avoid timeline.
 * *(in Controversial technology section) circa when it banned from some Australian beaches)
 * See previous comment.


 * Thanks again for your feedback --Brendanmccabe (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, when one reads about the suits running into trouble for being too revealing, IMHO that is a special case when at least a rough date provides important / relevant context for the information being presented. Even something that puts it into a 5 year band (e.g. "mid-1930's") would be plenty. And in the case where I was suggesting repeating the date is because most readers will not make the connection to the previous listing of the date. But I could be all wrong, and would not be even 1% upset if you decided to leave it as is. North8000 (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)