Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strip club/archive1


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:35, 6 July 2010.

Strip club

 * Nominator(s): Wallanon (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because a number of helpful Wikipedians have improved its quality through content edits, peer review, and copyediting. - Wallanon (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are reading this page now it was apparently stealth-archived. Any feedback is still welcome. Thanks. - Wallanon (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: I noticed this one leave the WP:GAC board and took a quick look to see why it was bypassing GAC and going straight for FAC. The article has certainly received a peer review lately, but at a quick glance, I see many issues that would cause problems at GAC, let alone FAC. For one, there are many unreferenced statements. Secondly, there are sources such as "2001live.com" that are not reliable. The captions for the images are not encyclopedic. I don't have time to do a more thorough review tonight, but if other reviewers feel it merits a run, I will gladly go over it again in a couple of days. But as it stands, I cannot support this article. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  22:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, don't have much time, but in terms of the image captions, I strongly recommend making them more informative. "Adelita Bar in Tijuana, Mexico" is not an adequate caption.  Why is the image even included in the article?  Is that strip club even mentioned in the article?  If so, maybe include a cited statement about it.  Other image captions read, "Go-go dancers performing on stage.", "Dancer performing on stage in Brazil.", and "Customer tipping after a dance."  These are very uninformative.  For the latter, you could say, "Customers typically tip by tucking currency into the dancer's waistband following the dance."  At the very top of the article, the first image caption could read, "Strip clubs advertise full nude entertainment to attract customers."... or something like that.  I'll continue offering advice as I find time, but please start by revisiting all of your image captions and try to make them more informative to the reader. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  00:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I read this one for the article (ahem). I see a large number of uncited statements.  I'd withdraw this or dress it up in a hurry.  It's got potential though.  Love to see Raul put to the choice about whether to put this on the main page ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment If somebody has a little time, could they please do a quick run through and flag the statements they feel need a citation? The sources are out there, but the article is a little long and I might be too close to it at this point to spot the ones I haven't already cited. Thanks. - Wallanon (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A very quick example: "This can result in clubs opening in areas with looser restrictions, and ossibly in areas with higher incidences of felony crimes such as robbery, aggravated assault, and others. Elsewhere in North America, the Zona Norte red light district in Tijuana, Mexico has a number of legal brothels which are modeled on strip clubs and feature U.S.-style striptease performed by its prostitutes." Aside from the misspelling "ossibly", what's the source for this statement?  Since this appears to be one of your first articles, I suggest reviewing WP:CITE if you haven't do so already. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  23:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Zona Norte being a red light district is general knowledge, but I just found three references to cite. One of them is a book by an ASU professor that cites two well known TJ strip as clubs as brothels. The zoning statement was just clarified and cited using a Seattle Times article from 2006. Thanks for pointing these out. Since this is not a scientific article, much of the sourcing is going to be from news and verifiable public interest material. I am looking for academic writing where I can, though. The academic and ethnographic literature unfortunately has shown a tendency to "clean up" accounts of the business, possibly in the name of discretion, so other recent sources needed to be used. Appreciate the link to WP:CITE, and will make a note to fix the links my edits inherited from other content. - Wallanon (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Updated: Wallanon (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Removed disputed reference to the 2001 Odyssey business website and struck the entire line referring to its specific service offering as an example. It was not a critical point. Left the statement referring to live video feeds from strip clubs and replaced 2001 Live inline reference with a 2007 book citation. - Wallanon (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I will work on the captions, and will take a look at some of the current featured articles for examples. Thanks. - Wallanon (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: good on you for taking on such a vandal-magnet, but unfortunately I don't think this is FA quality just yet. The organization of the article is rather poor - the ToC is absolutely huge, with several subsections that are only a paragraph long. More citations are needed, and some are still unreliable. The "See also" section needs to be cut down. I would strongly recommend that you hit GAN first. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This mention of "poor" organization in the article is the first time it has been raised as an issue. I would be interested in other editors' thoughts on alternatives. The TOC is now limited to 3 levels. For those who have taken the time to scan the article, anywhere they feel a citation is needed a would be appreciated. And if a reference seems weak it is easy enough to replace it with a  like someone did a few days ago. If I disagree strongly I would discuss here or on the talk page. The article was already put up for GA review (archive), with all of the suggestions addressed. -Wallanon (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I just read through this article, or most of it, in passing and saw it was up for FAC. I see it isn't going to pass but I have some comments that might help. The first thing that popped out to me was its organization and size (over 128k). I feel like I could open a strip club anywhere now and run it well. For organization, I would put some history upfront first like in other articles. Maybe work the "Historical evolution" section up to the top. The intro is also long as well. Each main section in the article could be broken out into its own article to shorten it up a lot. If you shrink the article down around the 64k standard, it will be easier to work with.--NortyNort (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is getting a little lengthy. The version of the article I originally submitted for GA might be half the size, and most of the content since has been responding to (quite helpful) feedback. My slightly longer response to why it's organized that way is it was structured to make it easier to move content into standalone articles if the consensus was to split. I'd have to do a little more thinking on how to push the history forward without moving everything else too far down, but can understand why people might want to see it near the top. The reservation I had with putting it upfront was that a good printed page of it was about striptease independent of strip clubs. How to get the length down without losing information is an open question. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. - Wallanon (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment In the "types of entertainment" section, the paragraph beginning with "Most clubs have a dancer rotation where each..." all the way until "Peep shows..." later is more of an operational thing rather than a type of entertainment. Maybe you could place that elsewhere or cut it out. It is a large article and I wish I had time to help more but just try to compress things. I see where you are coming about strip tease and strip club in the history. In my opinion as a reader, I like to see the history first in any article, even if it is small. Other than that, I think the organization of the sections is good. There aren't too many business FACs so I see it is tough. The one FAC that I could compare the organization, etc. to is Scouting.--NortyNort (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for flagging the statements you would like to see cited with . I may not be able to get through all of the mark ups today, but will resolve each of them by citing a reference or editing out the disputed content. - Wallanon (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—13 links to dab pages (see the toolbox to the right) and dead external links to http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2004-09-08/news/feature.html and http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk3JmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk3MTg2MTAy . Ucucha 04:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The broken links are now fixed. One of the articles I know was valid when I checked it, but is now deleted from the original source. The archive for the Bada Bing article is on a site that is blocked, so I replaced it with the CBS ref. The other article was still on the original site but had been moved. Thanks for pointing these out. The dab pages are a little trickier in some cases because the definition is there on the page but they don't have a standalone article. I have started linking to Wiktionary so I can check to see it they have definitions there. - Wallanon (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment There's quite a few fact tags on here, but I found one to be totally bogus on a cursory glance, I'm guessing that goes for some others as well. The article is (arguably justifiably?) huge and really out of my expertise, so I can't really comment much else on it. RN 07:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for doing the spot check. I will go through each . After a quick scan, some of them I know are cited a line or two over since I didn't want to cite behind every sentence. That doesn't mean they can't be, I just opted not to initially. Some of the older content I didn't write (or moved from other articles) may take a little longer to track down. I'll need to look at them in more detail to determine which is which. - Wallanon (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.