Talk:Flip-flops/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 09:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this. Will have comments up in a day or three. Sasata (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay; I get easily distracted...

• "This style of footwear has been worn by many cultures throughout the world" do cultures wear flips flops, or rather the people in those cultures?

Fixed. WTF? (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• "They may also lead to ankle sprains and broken bones." What is the subject of "they"? (the previous sentence was about injuries)

Corrected. WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• "strap that's not canvas" avoid contractions in formal writing

Fixed. WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• "(flip-flap had been used in echoic senses since the 1520s)" I don't really know what this means (also, too close to wording of the source)
• what makes "Online Etymology Dictionary" a reliable source?

I don't think there's a question about this being a reliable source. The site incorporates a search engine with information about various english words, and they cite their sources and also provide information about the author. WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, good enough for GA. Sasata (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• from what source is हवा चप्पल from? How can Google translate possibly qualify as a reliable source?

Translations actually really qualify more as common knowledge, since you're really providing the translation between two languages (no one owns the copyright over the words). With regard to the "Hawai chappal" <--> "air sandal" translation, a quick look at other online English-Hindi translators, as well as some actual translation books confirms the accuracy of Google Translate (although the spelling of "Hawai" may vary, due to translations between the Latin alphabet and Hindi Sanskrit). WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• "similarly-designed" -ly words as compound adjectives shouldn't be hyphenated per wp:HYPHEN

Fixed. WTF? (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see where in the two cited sources the Vietnamese, Polish, or Greek names are given
• I'm pretty sure the Austrian (i.e., German) name should be capitalized, not sure about the others, but you might want to check capitalization rules for nouns in those languages

I have capitalized Havaianas and Jandals, since they are trademarked proper nouns. I cannot find evidence that "schlapfen" is a trademark or company name, so it is not capitalized. WTF? (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Schlapfen is a noun, and nouns are capitalized in German; I fixed it. Sasata (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Does about.com qualify as a RS?

I have never had a problem or anyone else question citations to about.com before. The article lists the author who wrote it and the date of publication. They actually seem to do their research on a wide variety of topics. WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've had a different experience with the use of About.com. In this case though, I'll accept it, per the statement in WP:RS: "A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim". Sasata (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• what makes http://www.pecheblu.com (a commercial site promoting the sale of flip-flops) a RS? They appear to have text very closely paraphrased from this article (or perhaps vice versa?)
• the link to Havaianas redirects to the flip-flop article

Link removed. WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• paraphrased a bit too closely:

article: "Beginning in 1962, the Brazilian company, Alpargatas, marketed a version of flip-flops known as Havaianas. These quickly become some of the most popular in the world: By 2010, more than 150 million pairs were produced every year."

source: "First created in 1962 by Brazilian company Alpargatas, Havaianas has become the most popular brand of flip-flops in the world, with more than 150 million pairs being produced every year."

article: "…came to dominate the casual footwear of young women from their teenage years to college and, often, they would be embellished with metallic finishes, charms, chains, beads, rhinestones, or other jewelry."

source: "…came to dominate young women's casual footwear … were heavily embellished with metallic finishes, charms, chains, wood or glass beads, rhinestones, buckles, and other jewelry pieces."

article: "Following the criticism, their footwear was eventually auctioned off on eBay to raise money for a young cancer patient, Jaclyn Murphy of Hopewell Junction, New York, who was befriended by the team. Nine pairs of flip-flops raised approximately $1,653."

source: "Criticism followed, and eventually the celebrity footwear was auctioned to raise money for a young cancer patient, Jaclyn Murphy of Hopewell Junction, N.Y., befriended by the team."

These statements have been reworded. WTF? (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• why is greenlivingtips.com a RS? www.bridgestonetrucktires.com?

Citation replaced. WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• the link in ref #11 (Florida Today) isn't working

Replaced citation. WTF? (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• "The Japanese commonly wear tabi with their zōri sandals, which is a traditional sock with a single slot for the thong." source?

Citation added. WTF? (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• In the "Health and medical implication" section, I'd like to see more WP:MEDRS-compliant sources used for claims about increased susceptibility to injury, rather than the news sources that are currently used
• References:

page # for refs 4 and 8

publication year for ref #7? (Kendzior)

For ref 4, a page number is not printed on the page, but a link to the document is google books takes you directly to the page. WTF? (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Year added to reference #7. WTF? (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• If the various monetary amounts given in the article are in US dollars, that should be indicated

Where the dollar sign is used, it is linked to United States Dollar; the british pound is used in the article, too, and that is linked to Pound Sterling. WTF? (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Some suggestions for better medical sources:

Title: Footwear and orthopaedics.

Author(s): Kurup, H V; Clark, C I M; Dega, R K

Source: Foot and ankle surgery : official journal of the European Society of Foot and Ankle Surgeons Volume: 18 Issue: 2 Pages: 79-83 Published: 2012-Jun

• This is a review article (a good WP:secondary source) that spends a paragraph discussing flip-flops; some of the material in the Health section could be sourced to this (instead of news sources):

  "Flip-flops also are claimed to simulate barefoot walking and increase calf, leg and gluteal muscle activity. Manufacturers of the popular model Fitflop claim them to be flip-flops with a built-in-gym. The different flip-flops available on the market have been reviewed by American Podiatric Medical Association (APMA), which recommends only a few. According to APMA, the lack of support in a flip-flop can leave the wearer susceptible to sprained ankles and ligament injuries, and the limited protection offered to feet can mean a higher chance of cuts, scrapes, and stubbed toes. Penetrating injuries have previously been reported in rubber-soled shoes and flip-flops and they are therefore not recommended in diabetics, due to the lack of protection from injuries [48] and [49]. In general flip-flops appear to be suitable for normal feet but not for patients with foot pathology (Fig. 4).

note: their citation #48 is PMID 4381414, while #49 is PMID 11428760

Also, both this article and another source (PMID 20821862) mention the flip-flops made by Fitflops, and seem to endorse them (I'm using "endorse" loosely, of course), e.g., the latter source says: "If you’re going to wear flip-flops, you might try the ones made by Fitflops or Chaco. They’ve been endorsed by the American Podiatric Medical Association because they have a thicker sole, good arch support, and a deep heel cup that holds the foot and helps with shock absorption." This is probably worth a mention in the article.

• Your newly added source Shroyer (2009) is an improvement over what was there previously, but it appears like this is his doctoral dissertation; it's better to cite the relevant peer-reviewed publication resulting from this disseration:

Title: Comparative Analysis of Human Gait While Wearing Thong-Style Flip-flops versus Sneakers

Author(s): Shroyer, Justin F.; Weimar, Wendi H.

Source: Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association Volume: 100 Issue: 4 Pages: 251–257 Published: JUL-AUG 2010; PMID 20660875

Title: Computerized analysis of plantar pressure variation in flip-flops, athletic shoes, and bare feet

Author(s): Carl, Tanya J.; Barrett, Stephen L.

Source: Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association Volume: 98 Issue: 5 Pages: 374–378 Published: SEP-OCT 2008; PMID 18820040

From the abstract: "Results: Statistically significant results were obtained for nine of the 18 comparisons. In each of these comparisons, flip-flops always demonstrated higher peak plantar pressures than athletic shoes but lower pressures than bare feet. Conclusion: Although these data demonstrate that flip-flops have a minor protective role as a shock absorber during the gait cycle compared with pressures measured while barefoot, compared with athletic shoes, they increase peak plantar pressures, placing the foot at greater risk for pathologic abnormalities."

Another possibility:

Title: Effects of Common Footwear on Joint Loading in Osteoarthritis of the Knee

Author(s): Shakoor, Najia; Sengupta, Mondira; Foucher, Kharma C.; et al.

Source: Arthritis Care & Research Volume: 62 Issue: 7 Pages: 917–923 doi:10.1002/acr.20165 Published: JUL 2010

Let me know if you'd like to have these articles sent to you; I can access many through my University account (and there's always WP:RX for harder-to-find ones). Sasata (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's been over a month since the most recent post to this review, and almost that long since the nominator edited the article. What is the status, please? If there are still significant problems, perhaps the review needs to be concluded. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm closing this review; the nominator appears to have lost interest, and there's still problems with poor-quality sources in the "Health and medical implications" section. Sasata (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)