Wikipedia:Peer review/Underwire bra/archive1

Underwire bra

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I would like a peer review of this article to see where it can be improved. It just made good article status, and I'd like to get it to featured status if possible. How can the prose of the article be improved? Do you see any obvious information that is missing from the article? Any new sections it should have?

Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I am not an expert on bras, so I do not know if anything is missing here, but think what is here looks pretty good. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.
 * Would it be possible to have a photo of someone wearing an underwire bra? Perhaps even better could there be before (regular bra) and after (underwire bra) photos to show how an underwire bra affects appearance?
 * I have added a photo of someone wearing an underwire bra. The idea of having a before and after picture to see the effects of an underwire bra is good, but I don't have the possibility of creating one at this time. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good find on the new pic, I don't have the possibility of making before and after pictures either. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several external links in the article to US Patents - these should be converted to references per the MOS and WP:CITE
 * All the patents use the Cite patent template to create the external link, and at the end of the sentence the patent is also referenced in the references section with US patent reference. Is this duplication undesirable? If so, I can just remove the inline external links because the references are already there. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I was not familiar with the cite patent template - if this is standard, leave it as is. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While I like what is there, the History section has about a 30 to 40 year gap (1950s to 1989). I looked at one ref (current #8, Kanner, Bernice (1983-12-12). "The Bra's not for Burning". New York Magazine) which gives sales figures on underwire bras for circa 1983 in the US. It also discusses advertising, which might be something to add (lifts and separates?)
 * I would love to flesh out the history section, but I think I've exhausted all my resources for more material. The New York Magazine article is good and has a lot of historical information, but it's more aimed at bras in general, and not specifically at underwire bras, so I'm not sure how useful it's going to be.  If you happen to find any more resources, I'm completely open to them. I've tried to research to see if the bras made by Maidenform from about 1950 to 1980 or so were underwire bras, but it's hard to determine.  Maidenform has this patent from the 1940s, but I don't think it's for an underwire bra. Maidenform has a history section, but it is very sparse. Here is a list of many of their ads from the "dream" series (1950s-1970s), but again, I can't be sure they are underwire bras. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can sympathize on having gaps in the historical record - I just thought if I looked at one ref and found a new nugget to use, perhaps it would be worth looking at the existing refs a second time. I also have access to the New York Times archives and there are 685 matches on a search of "underwire bra". The first match is an ad from Apr 4, 1954 for the revolutionary Pauline Goddard underwire pettico-bra. I looked at the first 100 matches and they are all ads Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:HEAD the titles of headers should avoid repeating the title the article, so the header "Underwire" should be changed if possible. Perhaps "Design" or "Construction" would work instead?
 * The way I read WP:HEAD is that you shouldn't repeat or refer to the article title in headings, which to me means if the article is called "Underwire bra", then you shouldn't have sections such as "History of the underwire bra", "Underwire bra and security checkpoints", "Accidents and attacks with underwire bras" etc. I think this case is different, since the topic of the article is the bra and the "Underwire" section talks about the underwire itself, which is a part of the bra.  While I wouldn't be opposed to a "Design" or "Construction" section, the current "Underwire" section only discusses the piece of wire, not design/construction of the whole article of clothing. The relevant part of WP:HEAD says Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, so I don't think the current heading is a problem, because it's not referring to the subject of the article, it's simply the name of one of the components of the subject of the article.  What do you think? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mythbusters tested metal underwire and burn risks with defibrillator - MythBusters_(2007_season). Not sure if they are a valid scientific source, but it could at least be "in popular culture"
 * I added a sentence mentioning this in the "Health" section, where the defibrillator is already mentioned. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Per this,  Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Please read this and decide what to keep in See also (many of which are already linked in the article)
 * Ok, I went ahead and removed three links that were already in the body of the article. I left Lingerie and Wonderbra, which are not in the body of the article.  Those two links are in the nav template at the bottom though. —<b style="border:1px solid #C5BE83;background-color:#F5DEB3;font-size:0.9em;"> LinguistAtLarge • Talk </b> 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem if it is in both the See also and the nav box. If you think it important enough it could be in the article and See also, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I appreciate your taking the time to review this article. Thanks! —<b style="border:1px solid #C5BE83;background-color:#F5DEB3;font-size:0.9em;"> LinguistAtLarge • Talk </b> 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)