Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Impact of prostitution on mental health/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [1].

---

Impact of prostitution on mental health

Impact of prostitution on mental health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Impact of prostitution on mental health/archive1

Nominator(s): Wilfredor (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I consider it to be of high encyclopedic value, well documented, referenced, and I think it meets the selection criteria. Wilfredor (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy close This is an article, not a list. WP:GAN would be the right place for this now. Reywas92^Talk 14:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Several comments anyway to prepare you for a GA review:
  • What do the colors in the Context table mean? I don't see a correlation with severity or percent of women affected. Also, what are the sources for this table???
  • The Motivations for Entering Prostitution begins with a the name of a study in Portuguese, which is not accessible to a reader in English. This Brazilian study (and the next source) are not necessarily representative of a broader overview.
  • While inclusion of the Types of Prostitutes section is good, several sections don't cover the variety of prostitution and how different the impacts may be in regulated/non-regulated places and situations.
  • The paragraph on "Samantha X" is from the WP:DAILYMAIL. It's an unreliable source and I see no reason why this anecdote not analyzed by researchers should be included. Same goes for Maeve Moon.
  • Cynthia Harriman – while covered in an actual newspaper, this is again just an anecdote so a standalone section on her seems inappropriate. The interspersed quotations are good, but focus the sections on more academic findings. This is also poor writing to say "a resident of Rockford" (where is that?) and the present tense "now works" regarding a 2007 article.
  • Way too many sections are dependent on single sources such as Substance Abuse and Recidivism. The latter is also a PhD thesis, not a published/reviewed article.
  • "Pentecostalism" is also too much of a single anecdote rather than evidence of why this denomination in particular is significant. Beginning the Religion section "Pentecostalism presents an escape route, offering spiritual redemption and a fresh start" inappropriately implies that other Christian denominations do not provide support.
  • The single citation for Hypervigilance and Distrust is an unreliable source that has nothing to do with prostitution. Why is this here???
  • Recovery of Self in Connection with Horses – again, a single individual's anecedote. Caring for horses worked for this person, but absolutely nothing here suggests equine therapy is a widely used treatment recognized as being particularly for prostitution or that this deserves a whole section.
  • It's rather strange that the High-Class Prostitutes Study in Manhattan section fails to mention that the source is from 1958. Also, this is entirely WP:Close paraphrasing, with identical paragraph structure and sentences slightly reworded. E.g. you wrote "Most of the prostitutes analyzed had miserable childhoods; three-quarters came from broken homes due to separations or divorces. The remaining ones viewed their homes as facades, with loveless relationships between their parents." vs. the source's "Predictably, most of the girls had miserable childhoods; three-fourths came from homes broken by separation or divorce. The rest had viewed their homes as façades, papier-maché creations erected to cover a desiccated relationship, devoid of love between father and mother." That is bad and still a copyright violation, and other sections appear to do the same. Reywas92^Talk 15:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for take the time to review it, I'm taking the notes about your review to fix it. Wilfredor (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy close: Not a list. Should be nominated at WP:GAN. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Close - although it contains a few small tables, it isn't a list article so this is not the appropriate place for it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --PresN 16:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.