Wikipedia:Featured article review/Prostitution in China/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 08:35, 21 May 2009 [1].
Prostitution in China[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Prodego and China-related topics notice board notified
- Criteria issues: 1a, 2b, 2c
This is an important topic but the article has numerous problems. The citation style is a mess, there are many references that I wouldn't be able to find in the real world if I wanted to because I simply can't tell what the footnote means; I am slowly working on cleaning up the footnotes to use a consistent format, but there are still a lot that I can't deal with. Furthermore, many areas of the article are poorly written (for example, until I changed it just now, there was a bit that read "one source from 2005 says...." rather than naming the source...I can dig up more problem sentences if needed, although generally I just fix them as I come across them), and I feel no one has been watching it in years so all kinds of junk has slipped in (out of the 7 editors who have made more than 5 non-minor edits to the article, I am the only one who has edited it more recently than 2007). The article structure doesn't make much sense; I've left comments at the talk page, but here is a copy of the important part: "The article structure itself is also not that great. The Foreign prostitutes in China is just sort of sitting out there, not well-integrated into anything. The Legal responses, Policing, and The question of legalisation sections are each in 2nd-level headers, but appear to be about more or less the same thing, so it's not clear what they're doing as separate sections."
It would be great if this article could be cleaned up to get it back to FA standard. I personally don't have the knowledge or resources to do it all, though. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image
File:Beijing Office for Women's Production and Education.jpg: no information on first publication. DrKiernan (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, prose, structure. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment another thing I just realized (not sure how I never noticed it before) is that the intro doesn't comply with WP:LEDE; for example, it doesn't even say whether prostitution is officially legal or not (I only just noticed that now because an IP added it) and certainly doesn't really provide a good summary of the article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, Page move needed... What simply screams to be done is a page-move from Prostitution in China to Prostitution in the People's Republic of China. If it weren't in FARC I'd do it now... The entire article is misnamed from the start... both politically and historically (if it's prostitution in China, then where's the "History of" section...? Why on earth did SchmuckytheCat pagemove it in February? Not right at all!) and then, it is poorly organized.. it creates a false impression of being in-depth & up-to-date.. just in general, it needs a lot of work. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]