Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted per listed concerns below Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am opening a GA reassessment for this article, per this blog post on Wikipediocracy. I believe that the article in its current state fails WP:GACR criteria 1a, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, and 4. sst✈^(discuss) 04:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Large portions of this seem to be rather subjective, just reading through the lede. Busy weekend ahead, but I'll try to take a look. Kafka Liz (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so far all over the place that it's difficult to assess. The lede doesn't give a succinct overview, for starters - it should explain simply what the garment is, and leave the sizing details (if important) to later sections. A lot of this is not well-written. It's hard for me simply to review this, as my instinct is to rewrite it completely. I'll try to corral my thoughts more precisely, but.... Kafka Liz (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite needed. Very commercial, and surprisingly boring. Ceoil (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comment "Social issues and trends" seems poorly defined and rather coatrack-ish. Sub-headings like "No Bra Day" and "Miss America Protests" should be summarized and brought under some form of common heading. Examples that are specific to a few countries should not have their own headings per WP:GLOBAL. "Opposition to bras" is pretty damned strange since it mixes early feminist criticism with the hardline fundamentalism of Al-Shabaab. As for "Legal issues", should this even be a separate L2-level section? It's clearly more about social norms than legislation.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So, I guess there is clear consensus to delist this article, right? ssт✈^(discuss) 11:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would. If anyone feels differently, I'd encourage them to speak up. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I second that. The article is mostly a string of facts thrown together without much cohesion. Plenty of content, but no overview. And the sources are overall of very low quality. Promoted articles should not rely on tabloids, random news articles and fashion columns. Peter ^Isotalo 13:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would agree. The article approaches the garment incompletely and incoherently. It's also an article that cannot be edited properly due to POV issues.Mattnad (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Fourthed. As reasoned above, the article is an incoherent string of disconnected sentences. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, Lots of sources which are lightyears away from WP:RS, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, with apologies to the writer(s). It's not an easy article to write, because there's so much material to deal with. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]