Talk:LZR Racer

Swimming High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Swimming, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Swimming on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwimmingWikipedia:WikiProject SwimmingTemplate:WikiProject Swimmingswimming articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Olympics Mid‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fashion

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Copying from articles[edit]

I'll admit I am not an expert at the guidelines, but a couple of lines in this article are lifted wholesale from a source. What is the policy on this?

The text: It sucks the muscles into the perfect shape to swim. Lighter than others, it repels water, reducing drag.

It is straight from this article. Pgrote (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Added later -- didn't notice the date; the text in question has been addressed] It needs to be omitted from the article, used as a direct quote (discourage doing so as it's marketing-ese), or rewritten to meet Wikipedia's WP:MOS and not violate copyright laws. - Ageekgal (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading[edit]

First, 33 out of 36 isn't so impressive if 99% of the swimmers wore the suit. Second, self-selection bias. --141.155.12.146 (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Exactly what I was thinking. What if the 3 remaining swimmers were the ONLY ones who did NOT wear the suit? Percentages do not prove ANYTHING. Swimming records get broken all the time and LOTS of times during Olympics or World Championships. At every one of the most important championships, LOTS of records get broken. This "33 out of 36" might not even be statistically significant if nearly everyone changed to the suit or even if JUST the world top swimmers changed to it. The ONLY way this statement can be properly evaluated is by knowing absolute numbers. If less than 50% of the TOP swimmers used this suit, then, yes, it might be impressive. Otherwise, the statement that 33 out of 36 won gold does not mean anything. It could mean there was only 1 swimmer (winning 3 golds) who did not wear the suit. Or only 2 swimmers winning gold (sharing 3 golds between them) who did not. Or only 3 different swimmers not wearing the suit, but still winning gold.

So how many swimmers who were considered top contenders did NOT wear the suit? If 100% of the swimmers who were considered "top contenders" were wearing the suit, then "33 out of 36" does not mean anything at all. And the "3 out of 36" may have even been "previously unknown talents" or "lucky winners" or "swimmers that are great(er) but competed here for the first time".

Another thing I'd like to point out is that swimming records seem to get broken on a very regular basis. How many records are there in swimming that have stood between 2 Olympics (8 years) or 4 World Championships (also 8 years)? Close to none. So it is very likely for a world record to be broken at the "next very important championships". This has been going on for a long time, so the "suit" does not seem to be very important. In fact, the only time I can see a suit being important is when a female swimmer with large breasts uses a suit to make herself more "streamlined".

EVERY Olympics and World Championships, LOTS of world records and championship records get broken. It seems to happen a LOT more in swimming than in any other sports... . For one reason or another... . But I don't think it has to do with suits...

"33 out of 36" is completely useless as a measure of how effective the suit is without those additional numbers. 68.200.98.166 (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Contribution[edit]

It would be nice to see a citation regarding the details of NASA's involvement. I believe it was just providing fabric testing facilities. HyperCapitalist (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Fnlayson for a cleaner edit than mine on the NASA involvement. HyperCapitalist (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just NASA-tested per "Olympic Swimmers ... in NASA-Tested Suit" -Fnlayson (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on LZR Racer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LZR Racer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]