Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Photography of female nudes before 1923

Photography of female nudes before 1923
This article is concise, beautiful, and well-written. Its name was recently changed from vintage erotica. Here is the discussion that led to the name change. Cranberry 17:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Quote from mentioned discussion: "True, 1923 is an arbitrary cutoff; the main reason for choosing it was that I could use any pictures from that era without causing a copyvio". This is a ridiculous reason to name an article, to which I object. If you make such a cutoff, it must at least 1) a fixed cutoff (not a moving one) and 2) have a good reason for the cutoff. Also, it is not necessary to have a photo of each year to write an article about, "black and white erotic photos". As for the article itself, it very much seems like an excuse to have nude photos. The text is brief and jumps from fact to fact. It appears to be far from complete, and seems to mention only a few names and situations. We do not get a good overview of the scale and size of female nude photography in said era, public opinion - only a few indications are mentioned. There is no discussion of the ties with related topics (male nude photography, female nude photography after the "magical" 1923 border, photography in general), and it is unclear why the article is so specific. Right now, it would not even be a proper addition to "Female nude photography". Jeronimo 07:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, there is certainly nothing keeping someone from writing Photography of male nudes or expanding this article to bring it up to the present, and renaming it Photography of female nudes. In fact, if both articles are written, they might even be combined into Nude photography. The current title was chosen in order to accurately described the content, but does not limit future expansion in any way. Like many Wikipedians, I simply chose to limit my writing to the area of my expertise, photography of female nudes before 1923, rather than include photography of male nudes, or modern-day nude photography, which I am not as familiar with, and could not as competently write about. Cranberry 17:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * ObjectI completely agree with the above. The whole approach seems ill thought out, as a reason to put these  photos in an article.  They are good images (except for the 4th, where the poor woman seems to have unfortunate posture) and I'm sure an article on the subject can be featured, but not as it is now.Giano 09:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think there is a problem here Vintage erotica still exists as a seperate article with a cheerful looking lady who does not seen very vintage. Vintage erotica's talk page is the same as Photography of female nudes before 1923 I think someone's either confused or having a joke! I think also one should remember that this is an educational site that children visit too, and images should not be to grafic. Giano 14:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * While I concur with Jeronimo's assessment, I would note that the images accompanying this article would be considered quite decent in most countries. By almost any Western standard, they are restrained and in good taste. Considering what children are exposed to on network television, I would not consider these "graphic". Denni &#9775; 01:06, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
 * Sorry I phrased that badly. The  images in both articles are completely tame and harmless, I meant care should be taken that such an article does not attract a more graphic type of image being uploaded.Giano 09:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that one of the principal authors of this article (an anon, 205.217.105.2) just committed voter fraud on this very page by attempting to impersonate 172 and RickK. This same anonymous user went on to impersonate other users on several user talk pages. I don't mean to suggest impropriety, but is 205.217.105.2 the same user as User:Cranberry? In any event, I oppose this nomination, in agreement with Jeronimo above. -- Hadal 14:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object The article's title is arbitrary, and the topic isn't sufficiently developed. The fact that someone could write more about the topic and how it relates to other topics does not seem to me to be a good reason for featuring it.  I'm not so concerned with the motives for writing the article (as others are), but it is simply much too underdeveloped for such a broad topic. Jun-Dai 01:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)