Talk:Puppetry of the Penis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Notability
I have no references to hand but the subject is unquestionably sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. I'll leave the notability tag up for now because we do need some refs.


 * This is not the page creator. I removed the notability tag because this was mentioned on The Daily Show. I wanted to know if it was a real thing and was glad to find a Wikipedia article about it. 87.69.90.174 (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This act may be popular, but it is a form of pornography - as well as a joke at the expense of the audience. Shouldn't that be referred to in the introduction?203.184.41.226 (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Tricks
The list of 'tricks' is pointless without any explanation of what is involved. --Ef80 (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Would adding descriptions be too much of a spoiler, though? I've seen the show and could fill out this section more, if no one has a problem with it. 198.133.178.17 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Help Request
Hi there! I am a university student working on my first stub. I have been working for a couple months on improving the Puppetry of the Penis article. Could any editors or experienced users please have a look at my edits and leave some comments and advice? Also, there is a maintenance template from 2012 on this article. Could anyone assess whether this template can be considered for removal? I have added many citations for verifiability. Thank you --Rubyredgirl (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you've done a very good job with this article. Bravo! My only other comment would be to agree with a previous poster that the list of "tricks" makes little sense.  I'd suggest either eliminating it or elaborating on what the performers are actually doing.  WP is not censored, so "spoilers" are not a relevant issue here. But in all, a very good first effort.  Welcome to WP, and keep it up!  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the list of tricks is of questionable value, but I have added a multi-column template to make them less intrusive visually. Overall it is a very good effort and I hope you will be encouraged to work on other articles in WikiProject Nudity.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Doctor Joe and WriterArtist DC! I would just like to thank you both so much for your feedback and help in editing the article and cleaning it up, I really appreciate your contributions. I completely agree with your feedback about the list of "tricks" being questionable, and thank you for helping to format it better. It was there when I began editing the article and I was not sure whether or not to keep it. I believe since some of the tricks are mentioned in the "Summary" section already it could be removed, especially as there are no references to back it up. Let me know if either of you disagree and feel free to undo my removal of it. Rubyredgirl (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have commented on my talk page as well. The quotations from the New York Times and the Washington Post appear to be erroneous. I subscribe to both newspapers, both published negative reviews, and the quotes appear nowhere in their reviews. I have been unable to verify the Penn and Teller mention. The episode in question seems to have covered penis and breast enlargement frauds. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  15:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Washington Post reviewed the show twice, and the second review I found contains the quote. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  15:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Cullen328! Thank you so much for your feedback, this is really helpful as I did not think to confirm the quotations with the original source (as I do not have subscriptions) and merely based it on the article that cited these quotations. I will add the source you have linked me to to the Washington Post quotation, and I will remove the New York Times quotation as I am unable to find it elsewhere. As for the Penn and Teller mention, I could not find any references for that either, that was in the article before I began editing and I was not sure where the original editor found that reference or if it was correct. I think it should be removed. Again, thank you for your help, I really appreciate it. Rubyredgirl (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , as I said on my talk page, I can email the text of the NYTimes review to you if you can't access it because of paywall issues. As for Penn and Teller, it is certainly possible that they mentioned the performance but nothing I could find online confirms that. I used to watch their "Bullshit" show and still watch their "Fooled Me" show, but I don't think I watched the first few seasons. Plus, my memory of shows I watched 20 years ago is . . . limited. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My memory of shows I watched last year is limited, so you're doing alright. Cullen. To the matter at hand, I agree with getting rid of the tricks section (as has been done). Wikipedia is not paper, but for something visual, it doesn't add much if you can't see it. Not having references for the list was also problematic. Like the others, concur that you've made an excellent effort here. -- GentlemanGhost  (séance)  13:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Theatre Article Assessment
Re the request by, I'll throw a bit of feedback from an assessment department POV:

With respect to article quality, I agree entirely with Ipigott and the 93% ORES prediction that this article is of B quality. Therefore, the question then is turned to which areas are most in need of improvement, and the next steps for GA, A and FA status. From a fairly quick read through of the article, I would say it's not far off from being ready for a GA nomination. There are no issues from a Copyvio perspective, both with written content and images. Edits over the past month have greatly improved verifiability, and the breadth of inline citations. While the intricacies of WP:V and citations may be tweaked, there is nothing that stands out very prominently. Neutrality and stability do not appear to be of concern at this time.

What remain are a few concerns I would have if reviewing for GA. The image under Legal disputes may fall under WP:DECOR; that is to say, I fear it may be more distracting than it is enhancing. Although the section involves the FCC, the image does not depict hearings of the KRON investigations, but instead is just the logo for the FCC. Is the image relevant? Sure. Is it productive? I think additional opinions may be useful. Personally, it draws the attention away from the controversial content which is directly associated with the subject, and focuses it on the enforcing agency which serves as an independent entity relative to Puppetry of the Penis. More importantly, the caption "The U.S. Federal Communications Commission investigated Puppetry of the Penis for broadcast indecency in 2002" is misleading, as the show itself was not under investigation, but rather the broadcaster, KRON and Young Broadcasting. Perhaps something more along the lines of "The U.S. Federal Communications Commission investigated an incident of broadcast indecency in 2002, following a program featuring Puppetry of the Penis" would be more appropriate. All else, the article appears well illustrated with generally relevant images of, and related to, the show.

To the question of breadth of coverage, there do not appear to be any significant gaps in content. The lead section is well written, however, could likely be reduced a bit more, saving less critical details for the article body (e.g. "It is humorously termed "Dick Trick" or "genital origami," referring to the flexibility of the human penis, testicles and scrotum" would be more appropriate in the Summary section, rather than the lead). The inclusion (or allusion to) the various controversies associated with the show would be appropriate to add to the lead, so that they can be later elaborated upon. // In general, reviewing summary style may be a good next step when looking to improve the article.

Notwithstanding the above comments, the article is in very good shape, and certainly has improved drastically over the past month. I will reiterate that it is not far at all from GA status, and I would urge to consider nomination, if for naught else than feedback from a more formal review process.

In terms of the WP:THEATRE importance rating, as with most plays, I cannot see this changing from low any time soon. With a fair deal of certainty, I would see this applying to the other WikiProjects as well.

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Babegriev (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Also was asked by for feedback on this article. Having read the article a few times and looked through the comments I can only concur with Babegriev on just about everything mentioned above. It's a much improved article and 's work on the piece has probably elevated it to being ready for GA review. Babegriev's comments are pretty detailed and I have nothing special to add  except I would also suggest trying to trim the lead section further. Best wishes Bob (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)