Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Masturbation/archive1

Masturbation
Excellent article. Well written and cited and very through. Mercenary2k 12:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: without going in detail, I notice there is an odd mix between references in footnotes and external links (like [16]) in the main text. If possible (and it ought to) I feel that all external links should be converted into footnoted references. WegianWarrior 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Object—1a, 1b, 2a.
 * "It can refer to excitation either by oneself or by another (see mutual masturbation). It is part of a larger set of activities known as autoeroticism ..."—This is contradictory: masturbation by another person is hardly autoerotic.
 * References urgently needed in the lead.
 * The lead doesn't prepare me for the greater level of detail in the body of the text.
 * "Is believed to"—by whom? I want a reference if you're going to use that wording.
 * Do we need to know about an "esoteric and little-used synonym" just below the ToC?
 * "Female masturbation techniques are quite numerous and perhaps more varied than those of males."—"Quite" is not encyclopedic in this context (vague); nor is "perhaps".

I'm not bothering with the rest; I get the gist. It's vague and indulges in many sweeping, unreferenced claims. Tony 16:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Seriously. The lead needs work and the referencing is horrible. It mixes footnotes, direct external links and Harvard. More than that, there is at least one tag and huge sections of the article is unrefed. Please withdraw nom. Mi kk er (...) 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. per above. Sumoeagle179 00:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm delisting this nomination per WP:SNOW. Bishonen | talk 06:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC).