Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wonderbra

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

[edit] Wonderbra

Self-Nominated: After two months of work and very helpful feedback and contributions from the Wikipedia community, I think this article is ready for a hard look by the FA editors. I believe it meets the functional criteria of Featured Article status, so the question is whether the content is compelling enough, and writing is good enough to be featured. I think the content is compelling for a couple of reasons:

• While the details of the history of this famous brand are available, they're usually glossed over by the hype of various PR machines. We have done some digging into older newspaper articles and academic studies to explain the varied and interesting history of this product and the people who brought it to life. While this is not original research per se, this article may be the most comprehensive compilation of available material since Henry Mintzberg's seminal 1984 work on the history of Canadian Lady.
• The topic itself is both fun, and compelling as a business story. We've included links to rich media where appropriate.

Whether or not the writing itself meets the hurdles of "Brilliance", well, that's not for me to suggest. We've tried to be concise where necessary, and offer some flourishes to bring some of the story to life. This was a balancing act, but I'll let you all be the judges of that.Mattnad 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. As it is, the article looks great, is formatted rather cleanly and makes sense, though I have some personal preferences that could be changed with the article. IMHO, the pic in the "History" section might be better off right-aligned than left. The external links section might be more appropriate after the references section. The wonderbra women section could do with some expansion, plus references. The "current licensing structure" section should probably be merged into the history section, as it seems like recent history of the brand. Shrumster 18:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I moved the "Current licensing" section so it's adjacent to the history section but didn't go as far as to merge it. I wanted to avoid conflicts between the section titles and the content. The external links section has been moved to the end. The "Wonderbra women" section is a very old holdover from the origins of the article. I'm hoping the wikilinks to the related article for the women will suffice for reference. Each article mentions the woman's experience as a Wonderbra spokesperson, but if pressed, I'll dig up external references. I've left the Canadian Lady logo in the history section as is. I did this because on wide screen monitors, it works better with the left-justified table in the preceding section. Mattnad 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support and Comment --Nice Job but please can you get another picture of a woman in a 1950's bra than the current picture. That woman looks anorexic. :) Mercenary2k 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, though I think there's a certain amount of irony in voting "support" for a garment that's designed to support. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object Both Image:Canadian-Lady-Logo.jpg and Image:Wonderbra-TV-1975.jpg are copyrighted images being used as fair use. Yet they're both bigger than my wallpaper. Shrink both to a low resolution (less than 400 wide) and add detailed fair use rationales to those images and Image:DiciBox.jpg. ShadowHalo 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lower resolution images have been substituted for Logo and 1975 TV screenshot. More detailed explanations of fair use rationale have been provided.Mattnad 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In the future, you can simply upload one image over the other by clicking "Upload a new version of this file" underneath the file history (no big deal though). ShadowHalo 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm not a fan of the typical Wikipedia pop culture section and this one is particularly redundant. Aside from being entirely unreferenced, the facts about Rammstein and Ali G. seem pretty random and totally unnecessary. The whole section should be cut, while the "Greatest Canadian Inventions" trivia - if there is a source - could be put into the text elsewhere. Jaqu 01:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally fine cutting that section out. This article has become much more of a business story than entertainment. However, this section and the equally lightweight "Wonderbra Women", contain long-standing elements that I didn't want to remove based on my whim -- the Rammstein reference dates back to the article’s creation. Before I take this step, I would ask for other comments either in favor or opposed to this move. Regarding the "unreferenced" criticism, I wouldn't mind an explanation of how links to specific wikipedia articles that support the material do not represent a reasonable source. It's pretty easy to copy their references, but isn't that reinventing the wheel?Mattnad 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• I recommed cutting out the pop culture section, too. Its wholly unnecessary and fairly trivial. Wickethewok 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Given there are no defenders of that section, I've removed it and incorporated the CBC television show details into a new section called "Recent developments" with a reference citation. Mattnad 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object I think this is an outstanding article and close to FA, but I have concerns about OR or what appears to be OR because of unreferenced comments that come across as OR. I'm afraid I'm short of time, so here's just a few "drive-by" suggestions of some of things that jumped out at me. Please take them in the positive frame of mind in which they're made. I'm happy to reconsider, especially if I'm wrong on any of these. Equally, as I say, I've not yet read this as thoroughly as I'd have liked, but I promised a few days back to contribute.
• 1. "Israel (Hi) Pilot designed an improved cup" implies that he improved on an earlier design. Which earlier design? If not, suggest "Israel (Hi) Pilot designed an innovative cup that improved on..."

Changed language, added references. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• 2. "cutting the fabric on the bias" is a bit too jargony for me. I didn't understand.

Clarified meaning. Added reference. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• 3. "Under the Wonderbra brand, this bra became the most popular style for years in Canada. " definitely needs a citation - without, it smacks of OR and POV

It's a true statement (per the curator of the McCord Fashion museum), but removed for now, pending verifiable support. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• 4. "In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the majority of women were still wearing highly-structured undergarments." Majority? The stat that follows is 40%.

Stat is for unit sales - in that period, there was a girdle sold for every bra. At any rate, found a reference supporting statement. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• 5. "Nadler learned that women wanted 'less bra', not 'no bra.' " Dodgy punctuation. Sounds like a quote, but unreferenced.

Corrected quotes and clarified source. That was from the Mintzberg book. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• 6. "The ads were revolutionary for North America in that they included a man." Without a ref, sounds like OR.

Removed sentence, pending verifiable support. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• 7. "The U.S. Wonderbra advertising campaign also generated mild controversy for the objectification of women's breasts. Ultimately, this narrow focus on breast enhancement meant that the American Wonderbra would become a fashion accessory for women among their broader arsenal of clothing. Following the 1994 re-launch, Wonderbra remains popular around the world as a product, and a part of our cultural lexicon." No references make this OR City, I'm afraid.

Added references for latter part of this paragraph. Removed sentence on "narrow focus" for now. This is accurate (Wonderbra was promoted as a bra, rather than lingerie line for years), but will need further research to find references. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• 8. ""spokes-model."" Quote? Reference? Last named is either nn or should be wikilinked. In any case, the section may well be POV and perhaps the article should point to a separate List article, which would inclusively have all such models listed, rather than trying to pull out the most important, in a subjective manner.

Removed this section. It's been with the article from it's more pop origins, but difficult to support in the new context. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hope that's helpful, albeit disappointing to the outstanding and hard-working contributors, notably Mattnad. Sorry :-( --Dweller 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Youtube as a source, pls read WP:DASH and make corrections throughout (particularly em-dashes), and please clarify hyphenation of product name early on in article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Added details on the evolution of the "Wonder-Bra" to "Wonderbra" trademark. Took a hard look at the hyphenation and made adjustments. Regarding the em-dashes, these are used for parenthetical statements or phrases in the text, and in one case, are used where a period would be too strong of a break between ideas. The article your recommended suggests these uses of em-dashes are acceptable in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to handle the comment about YouTube as a source. In this application, the links to wonderbra ads hosted Youtube are not intended as a source. These links to the ads bring to life parts of the brand development which are well documented in the article by the Mintzberg and Goodis books. The ads are self-identifying (yep, it's a Wonderbra ad when you see it) are really there for illustration of facts already confirmed by reputable and verifiable sources. The ads are also available on various blogs and other sites. Is the issue simply that Youtube is hosting the ads? If the reader were referred to other sites with the ads, would that alleviate the concern?

I corrected all of your em-dashes, worked on your references (you hadn't employed named refs at all, and you repeated every book reference—pls check page numbers). The problem with YouTube is not only that it's not a reliable source, but that WP:EL says that Wiki should never link to a copyright violation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. You did a LOT of work on those references (and now footnotes). Re: Copyright on youtube: I have a media lawyer friend checking into the copyright status of those commercials. There's a very high probability that they no longer have U.S. copyright protection because they were (a) Canadian, and (b) it's more than than 27 years since the were first used. I was told that when the commercials were produced, the U.S. copyright law only granted foreign motion picture media of this type 27 years of protection. Although US law was later changed granting longer copyright to foreign work, the extension would only apply to these Wonderbra commercials if Canadelle had registered them in the U.S. (not likely, but we're checking). Mattnad 11:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

US$1 billion Youtube lawsuit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Sandy who has contributed a lot to the article, I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with an objection to the external links. To some degree, Sandy has raised an Ad Hominem objection to Youtube, but has not demonstrated any Copyvio for these old commercials. I still defend the links to the commercials as very helpful illustrations of verifiable facts, from reliable sources: Wonderbra produced these ads as part of their brand development. Moreover, there's no evidence of Copyvio. The fact that they are on Youtube is not enough to assume Copyvio, and asking for proof of no copyvio on external links is a test that goes beyond Wikipedia guidelines, and well beyond the law. -- Mattnad 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've removed my objection above. Matnad's done a lot of work on this article. I can't go so far as to support at this stage, as I've not reviewed the article, but he's certainly dealt with the problems I raised. --Dweller 13:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Regarding the images: Are we sure about the copyright template used on Image:Diagonal Slash Patent.jpg? This would appear not to be the work of the US Government, but work for hire by attorneys working on behalf of the patent holder. I'm not an expert on US copyright law so it might be PD anyway. I would strongly suggest that Image:Original WonderBra Model.JPG be cropped and zoom in on the bra itself. The model's face is far too prominent and distracting. On a seperate note, you might want to check for mentions of Wonderbra in other articles and wikilink them, as this article has a surprisingly low number of incoming links. --kingboyk 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Right you are on the public domain attribution for the patent image. It may not technically be a work of the US gov't but it IS allowed because it's part of a patent (see this wikipeadia image of a patent for the licensing). For the life of me, I can't get that {patent} licensing template to work. If someone out there can help out, that would be great. For the other photo, the recommendation to focus only on the bra is understood, but it could be polarizing. Take a look at the discussion archives of Brassiere to see what I mean. For some readers, it's an unsettling way to crop a photo of a woman in a bra. Did a search and wikilinked "Wonderbra" in a few more articles. Mattnad 22:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Found a working template. - Mattnad 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.