Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pornography in the United States/archive2

Pornography in the United States

Self-nom. After the old test nomination I've fixed several proposals and checked out the article's perspectives. Several applicable suggetsions have been fixed after an automated peer review. I've made a further expanding and severe editing trying to give a detailed and in-depth (as far as it possible) coverage. Recent copyedit was done by Eastlaw. Thanks, --Brand спойт 12:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, needs a copyedit; eg in line 3 "The case, despite of demonstrating that" and "The upcoming censorship of pornographic materials in the United States, among the First and partially Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to Constitution, became based on the so-called harm principle, as well as in Canada and the United Kingdom." Secondly, the article seems very law-based; obviously, what SCOTUS and the other courts have said is important, but is it more than half of the total article? Also, the lead is inadequate; it only summarises the legal side of the article. Batmanand | Talk 14:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've splitted both sentences. --Brand спойт 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Well written article and anything about pornography is inherently good as far as I'm concerned. I love itPolicratus 19:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Troll. Bishonen | talk 02:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

• Oppose. per batmanand and the referenceing is inconsistent, full of external jumps. Sumoeagle179 23:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've decreased the jumps number. --Brand спойт 12:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Why the hell does the article have the Supreme Court infobox? This article certainly has a lot of content related to the Supreme Court, but not so much as to need the infobox. -- Kicking222 03:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Already removed. --Brand спойт 12:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Pictures of any publications or something? Doesn't have to be something explicit and hardcore, but a frontpage shot of Playboy wouldn't hurt.UberCryxic 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There were some pics, but Patstuart removed all, that according to him failed the copyright criteria for covers. --Brand спойт 04:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Still. Completely. The prose ain't near close. Very obvious problems with the first sentence haven't been corrected since the first FAC. Don't go looking for pics Brand--find someone to edit this, and have some patience doing so. Contact me on talk and I'll try to go over it. Give Tony (who gets a lot of requests) a month or so, without pestering him. It can be improved, but as it stands this article is not near FA quality and should be delisted. Marskell 22:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. No matter how good this article is, I don't think its content is suitable for the homepage of Wikipedia which is viewed by so many people of different ages, societies, etc. Flymeoutofhere 13:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there any rule that states that an FA MUST eventually appear on the Main Page? I don't think this is the case, but of course, I'm not sure that it's not the case (though I'm far more likely to believe the former than the latter). -- Kicking222 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, there's definitely no such rule. As it says at the top of the Today's featured article page, the featured article director even maintains an unofficial list of articles unsuitable for front page placement. I don't see why an article that simply discusses porn in a nonexplicit way would be on that list, but in any case it's irrelevant to whether the article deserves FA. —Celithemis 03:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I know that, Flymeoutofhere, but have a look at WP:PORN, Wikipedia:Profanity and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. In my opinion if such kind of article is a NPOV, reliable and doesn't contain any hardcore, it may be featured some day, like Prostitution in China. A free knowledge is the essence. --Brand спойт 18:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The non-idiomatic English alone is enough to keep this from FA, but I won't belabor that point since it's already been mentioned. It's only part of the reason for my opposition, though. Disorganized paragraphs and sections are also a problem throughout, and would make the article difficult to read even if the sentences were polished up. For example, the two paragraphs under the Internet section header are a jumble of information; the raw ingredients for a discussion of Internet porn may be there, but they haven't been put together into a coherent whole yet.

Inadequately explained points: in what way does the CAN-SPAM Act address internet porn? And what does it mean exactly that "Lesbian sites are considered not to fit securely into anti-pornography or 'pro-sex' feminist ideas"?

The section on the anti-porn movement has major NPOV and sourcing problems. First it quotes an argument against anti-porn feminists' views at length before actually explaining what those views are, which slights their side of the debate, and is also confusing. Later it briefly mentions that anti-porn activists claim a connection between pornography and rape, then, without discussing their arguments, goes straight into a refutation based entirely on one recent paper -- which appears at first to be a book, since the title is italicized in the text; it should be in quotation marks. The paper doesn't appear to have been accepted by a peer-reviewed publication yet -- it's part of a working paper series -- and the article doesn't even cite the paper itself, just a web columnist's opinion piece based on the paper. That's the *only* source cited on the subject. Earlier on, the source for anti-censorship feminists' views is an introductory textbook on popular film. This research is far too sketchy, especially for such a contentious issue.

The section also does not give a coherent explanation of how the Minneapolis and Indianapolis ordinances differed from previous anti-pornography legislation. The fact that they created civil causes of action, rather than criminal penalties, is not even mentioned.

The history of pornography in the U.S. before 1950 is barely touched. Even though there is a link to the "history of erotic depictions" article, some discussion of dirty postcards, mutoscope reels, and so on seems in order. Also, what about the Comstock Laws?

Limited perspective: the "HIV encounter" section indicates that the U.S. porn industry does not use condoms, but I believe that the gay male porn industry does.

"The market is very diverse and range from the mainstream heterosexual content to the rarefied S/M, BDSM, interracial sex, ethnic, etc. through enduringly popular gay porn." Setting aside the problems with this sentence that even a superficial copyedit by a native speaker will catch, S/M is a subcategory of BDSM, and the "range" presented -- with "ethnic" porn somehow in between gay and straight -- makes no sense.

The sentence about New York v. Ferber says laws against child pornography were "successfully challenged" when it apparently means they were successfully defended. The section on the Anti-Pornography Movement says "subversive" when it means "submissive."

It's obvious that a lot of work has gone into this, but it's simply not anywhere near FA quality. I have to agree with those who said last time that it should not be GA either. —Celithemis 04:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)