# Talk:Sindy

I'd like to see pictures of an original Sindy if possible, as there are non in the article. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaoTao (talk • contribs) 

I agree, the article definitely needs pictures. If anyone has any dolls around they can take photos of, it'd be much appreciated. Somno (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, have added some non-free pictures from promotional sources, since it's not possible to add a free image of Sindy since all images are derivative works of a copyrighted item. Somno (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue with the photos can be solved. There are no photos of the dolls at this time. Promotion photos can not be used. If you own the doll and take photos then you have to donate them wiki media commons. You have to swear that you own them. The process is pretty complicated and annoyingly but it can be done with persistence. I have a photo of Sindy by Marx that I could donate for example that I took myself. But I am just not that into Sindy to bother with this step. Ty78ejui (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

re. image: Look at Image:Barbie.jpg. I'm a Commons admin so apparently I know about these sort of things...and in any case I trust Yuval Y's judgement. Go for it.
After reading up on derivative works at Commons, I asked about that Barbie image at Media Copyright Questions and was told it shouldn't be on Commons. So I went with the "safer" option of declaring the pics derivative works.
The first paragraph has some really short sentences...flow is poor
I agree, will fix.
"The doll is continually updated to meet current fashions and has a wide range of accessories." - huh? You just said it was withdrawn...
I'll fix that as part of the lead.
"after Hasbro redesigned the doll" - the doll --> Barbie (right?)
No, Hasbro redesigned Sindy (quite disastrously, although I've been more NPOV in the article). Barbie is a Mattel doll.
Newspapers/Magazines should go in italics in refs (check them)
I thought the citation templates would do that automatically and never actually checked. Guess that's what I get for trying to take the easy way out. :) Will fix.
"but Sindy's "girl next door" was more popular in Britain" - huh? Girl next door talks about sexual stereotypes, are you? If so, clarify a bit
Many articles mention Sindy's "girl next door" look as a contrast to Barbie's more overtly sexual image. Will try to clarify the text some more.
"In 1971, Sindy went through a major overhaul..." - paragraph unsourced
Ah, that's because it's one of the only two original paragraphs left. I've taken it out because I haven't been able to find a reliable source that discusses those changes.
"Jane Braithwaite travelled to Paris, France" - yeah, most people know it's in France...
True, taken it out.
"the new Sindy doll is easily confused with their - is --> was
Fixed.
"during that period by the Polly Pocket doll." --> "during that period by Polly Pocket."
I was trying to make it clear that Polly Pocket was a doll, without considering that I was linking to the article anyway.
"The doll was released two versions" - missing a word here?
Yep!
"changed to resemble a 12 to 14 year old girl" --> "this time resembling a 14 year old"?
Went with "this time resembling a 12 to 14 year old", as that's what the source said.
I'm not sure the article meets criteria 3 - not much about legacy, design, inspirations, that sort of thing, which I'd expect. Compare to Barbie - it's not great either, but it has a few sections that you don't have.
I have tried and tried to find info about the doll's design, and there's really only info on fan sites. I'm not sure they're reliable sources, hence why I haven't used any as references. As for inspiration, I believe Sindy's essentially a rip-off of the Tammy doll (even has the same slogan), but again, that's only said on fan sites. I assumed the Barbie article would be at FA status and I could just copy the structure, so I was disappointed to discover it wasn't. For comparison, here are Barbie's sections compared to this article:
1 History - Yes, except it doesn't explain the inspiration for Sindy - will search for this info.
2 Biography - Sindy's biography isn't as well defined as Barbie's so much of this info is irrelevant.
3 Controversies - Barbie is hassled a lot more than Sindy! I have briefly mentioned the two minor Sindy controversies, the feminist stuff and the Princess Diana doll.
4 Parodies and lawsuits - The lawsuit from Mattel is covered, but not in its own section - should it be? No parodies that I'm aware of, unless they're UK-specific. I'll search to make sure.
5 Collecting - Yes.
6 Barbie versus Bratz - The whole article is essentially Sindy vs Barbie (and eventually Bratz), so I don't see the need for a specific section.
7 Barbie product recalls - No Sindy recalls that I'm aware of, but I'll make sure. Doubt there'd be enough for a section, so I'll add it in among the other bits.
8 See also - Could link to 1:6 scale modeling like the Barbie article I suppose, but it doesn't really add anything IMO. Everything else related is linked in the article.
9 References - Yes.
10 Further reading - Yes.
11 External links - Yes.
I asked at Requests for Feedback whether the article should be in sections like the above, or if a timeline was more appropriate. Didn't get an answer so I just left it organised by decades.
Ref 27 needs publisher info
Hmm...I see your point, but as you've said, Barbie isn't the best article to be comparing too. Not sure if there are any high quality articles on this topic. I suppose if you can't find anything in RS discussing influences etc. (I'm assuming there's no real legacy?), is there anything on the Sindy website? Do they talk about the "history of the doll"? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a website and doesn't really have a publisher, but I'll add it anyway.
In this case, the publisher is the website domain (eg. "en.wikipedia.org", "google.com", "barbie.com" etc.)
The ELs at the bottom aren't really necessary and could be used as refs (I'm repeating something from that GA reviewing guide, eh Somno?! :)
Yep, will re-evaluate the ELs. :)
Leave a note on my talk page when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 04:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks heaps, will try to address all these suggestions ASAP. Somno (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
All fixed (I hope), except concerns about criteria 3 and the lack of info about design and inspiration. To be tackled next! Somno (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Barbie is the best doll article I've found. Most look like this article did before I got involved - unsourced and irrelevant stuff written by fans (Blythe (doll), Tammy doll, Cabbage Patch Kids, Troll doll). Bratz isn't too bad, except it's not trying to compile stuff from the 1960s. As for official websites, Sindy.com is aimed at kids - all about having fun with Sindy and her friends, nothing about the history of the brand or product, and Pedigree Toys doesn't have an official website.
I'm still working on influences etc. I'm not sure if there's something in Collette Mansell's book, but then that doesn't really help me anyway because I don't have access to it! There isn't really a legacy - for example, the doll didn't start off a wave of similar fashion dolls. Somno (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've added how the doll came about, and that it was based on the Tammy doll. I've also expanded on the doll's introduction to America. Somno (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And I've passed the GA. :) Now, I plan on reviewing some GA noms once the article I nominated is reviewed ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is written a pro Pedigree tone and an anti Hasbro tone. Furthermore it does not discuss the dolls as much as the lawsuits. The coverage of the legal part seems to be complete, but I am not sure that it is all correct and needs more fact checking. Here is what the article needs: More descriptions of the Hasbro Doll and the boyfriend doll Paul. Where was Hasbro Sindy sold? I think she was mostly sold in Europe and not the USA. Less emphasis on how "awesome" Pedigree Sindy is compared to Hasbro because that make the article non neutral in tone.  Ty78ejui (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)