Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pornography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pornography[edit]

I felt like this entry is very thorough, and it best explains Wikipedia's work at it's best. Although I may be afraid that it may fail the test because a lot kids come here and the first page will most likely be seen, on the other hand Wikipedia isn't rated G, nor it's R, it's NR [Not Rated] and deserves a front page attention. Falconleaf 22:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: all those inline external links need to be converted into a proper reference format. Some sections are too, umm, stubby, and need filling out or merging (e.g., by Region, Economics). In general, this topic needs pretty thorough referencing (e.g., in the "legal status" section) if it is to gain (and maintain) featured status! Outriggr 22:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you withdraw the FAC. You seem to have nominated it because it is sensational rather than because it is well written. I am a regular editor there and I'd like to say that this article is nowhere near ready. Peer review would be a better idea, but it needs a lot of work before it will even be ready for that. Please don't waste people's time on FAC, It is so far from meeting FA standards that it would be better to let people work on it for a while longer first. Just because it is long doesn't mean its ready to be a FA. Although I think this can be a FA at some time in the future, right now it is not wikipedia's best. pschemp | talk 01:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the above sentiments, minus the comment on Peer Review. Any time in an article's life is a good time for Peer Review (provided you're actually getting feedback over there, of course, which is hit or miss these days). Ryu Kaze 02:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest nomination withdrawal. The talk page shows that this has yet to be peer reviewed. While it's better than the run-of-the-mill article, it has too many shortcomings to merit serious consideration here. The featured article whose history I know best, Joan of Arc, went through three separate peer reviews over the course of a year before coming to FAC. Best wishes - come back in a few months. Durova 04:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whatever the outcome of this FAC, it will be a heatedly debated one. I personally do not think it should be placed on the main page. Children come to this site for reference, not to have smut thrown in their face. Yes, wikipedia is not monitored for youngsters, but once a seed is planted, it has disasterous results. In any case, we should have at least have a moral agenda? As per above, I think the article should be withdrawn from nomination. Thanks, Spawn Man 10:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a FA does not mean it should be featured on the Main page. This is not an actionable object. Sometimes wikipedians have agreed that a particular article should not be in the main page. Wikipedia got the same issue because of self-reference. CG 12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not object, I made a comment of my own opinions. Thnx. Spawn Man 00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ups, sorry. I didn't notice that :-) CG 05:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I think this article should be in the main page if it ever reaches FA. It's a highly notable subject, and I'm opposed to operating the encyclopedia on the basis of concerns for morality (an inherently POV subject). Ryu Kaze 12:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moral agenda?!?!?! Whose morals? That's really one of the most shocking statements I've heard on wiki for a long time. We're here to share knowledge, no more no less. Also, could I please ask that people bear in mind that FACs have nothing to do with putting an article on the front page. That's a seperate decision. (I say this because not only does my current FAC have "bad language" in it, so does my probable next nomination :), and it's a bit tiresome having to repeat over and over that this process is about getting a star, not about front page exposure). --kingboyk 13:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm being absolutely serious when I say that this article needs more images. Also, "Legal status of pornography" section needs to be converted to prose, with the listy stuff split off into another article. Too many external links (I suspect many of those are meant to be references). Too many short sections. Coffee 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I got rid of that long list and made a List of pornography laws by region article as you suggested.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Needs a total reorganisation. Anti-pornography movemement material is several times the size of the history section. Entirely too focused on the twentieth century. Image in lead is a very weird choice. There is just an enormous amount of work to be done. Jkelly 20:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Object Being a huge fan of porn myself, this is difficult for me to object. But as of right now the article is pretty crappy. It needs a lot more work to become FA. Stubby sections, bad categorization, and the prose stinks.UberCryxic 02:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article has huge holes (no pun intended). For example, the section on Porn by Women doesn't even mention Annie Sprinkle! Kaldari 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. The article has some great info but most of it is woefully disorgainzed, meandering, spammy and sometimes incoherent. The prose and stucture of the article need to be much tighter.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Several problems:
    • Subsections are far too short. (Yes, size does matter.) If a topic is important enough to merit its own subsection, you should have more to say than just one or two paragraphs.
    • Whole sections lack citations - the "Pornographic stereotypes" section stands out in this regard.
    • Speaking of which, per WP:MOS, section headers shouldn't include the name of the article; please rename the section headers without using any form of the word "pornography." ("Anti-pornography movement" might be okay, but I think there are ways you can rename this as well and still fully comply with the Manual of Style.)
    • I'd like to see some discussion of aesthetics: what consistutes good porn as opposed to mediocre or bad? (I'm a bit surprised not to see a reference to the famous dictum "I know it when I see it. Maybe I just overlooked it.)
    • The lede should summarize the important points of the article, but there are several important sections of the article that get no mention in the lede. If a topic is important enough to merit its own section in the article, it's important enough to be mentioned in the lede. Peirigill 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pornography/archive1&oldid=212174755"