Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pornography in the United States/archive1

Pornography in the United States edit

After passing the GA status, the article underwent some more edits and I finally decided to put it. --Brand спойт 19:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence: "Pornography in the United States as a legal term by itself at the federal level, except the generic terms "hardcore pornography" and "child pornography", does not exist since the 1973 Miller v. California case, when the U.S. Supreme Court added a legal significance to the term "obscenity", which encompasses the hardcore and is defined by the Miller test."

To be honest, this sentence was so incomprehensible I had to stop. Give me a few minutes. Marskell 21:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm with Marskell. Um, what? -- Kicking222 22:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is the seal of the US Supreme Court really necessary? How does it improve the article in any way? -- Kicking222 22:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article simply needs some marginal images rather than of nude girls :P --Brand спойт 10:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In its present state the article is often unintelligible (right from the first sentence, as mentioned above). Remarkably, the article barely mentions feminism, a subject that surely has much bearing on pornography in the US. Much rewriting and rethinking of the article is needed before it can reasonably be made a FA. Pinkville 23:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The current peer review apparently failed, thanks for pointing out here. --Brand спойт 12:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll oppose, having had my few minutes. Normally I wouldn't do so immediately, but this is so far from 1a that it shouldn't be considered for FA at this point. Brand has put in a lot of work, but (not to offend in the slightest) a native speaker needs to engage this to correct for tense and use of prepositions. The writing is just not right. To use an example from the already cited first sentence, "does not exist since" ought to be "has not existed since" (the sentence needs total reworking otherwise). Many other examples can be pulled out. This leaves aside the coverage issue.
And I just gotta ask this: why did this become a good article four days ago? Really, what are they doing over there? Marskell 23:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd have to ask Lincher, as he's the one who reviewed it. --PresN 05:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh yeah, Oppose. --PresN 05:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose—Appallingly written. To reinforce what Marskell says, I'd vote to close down the GA system on this basis. It's a journey into the random, without checks and balances. Tony 01:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]