Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vintage erotica

Vintage erotica
Best article ever! Concise, well-documented, and beautiful. It should be on the main page. 205.217.105.2 01:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A fine start, and could be brought up to FA quality with modifications and additions. The header needs to be tighter, and it's the wrong place to discuss Paul Reubens' collection. As well, the only photographer who gets any mention here is Belloque, and he was certainly not alone in producing quality erotic images. I believe there is much more room in this article for those who produced the images, and perhaps for some of the more notable images, studios, and models. Further discussion could include the hurdles early erotic art had to overcome from politicians and the clergy, and any notable cases falling out of these. I would also reduce the discussion of pornography in this article, not for reasons of taste, but because it really doesn't fit here. A note to indicate that there is an overlap is adequate, but any further discussion belongs in its own article. IMO, the choice of accompanying photos displays emminent grace and good taste. Denni &#9775; 04:04, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
 * Eliminated discussion of Paul Reuben; reduced discussion of porn; added other photographers. Grokstar 04:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You added an image which appears to have been taken in the seventies or eighties. I would remove this, because it is in very jarring contrast to the other images. A suggestion - male nudes images were not uncommon in the early days - perhaps replace this with one of them? And how about a sample (and maybe a quick note) of stereo nude images? Those were quite popular. Denni &#9775; 05:08, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose. I find myself in agreement with Denni's comments.  Further, I question the cut-off date of 1923.  No reason not to mention copyright considerations, I suppose, but I have seen stills from the 1930s to the 1970s often referred to as "vintage" as well.  Edeans 04:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 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. Of course, one could hunt down some pics owned by universities and other governmental institutions that are public domain, or ask permission to reprint. However, anything we reprint goes straight into the GFDL, so presumably they would have to sign away their rights permanently. It seems that the highest quality stuff after 1922 is privately-owned. It is also possible to write about erotica without photos; however, I always thought that with some articles, it kinda defeats the point to have the text without the pictures. For an extreme example, see Dalen Kurtis' original page. Her main claim to fame is being a Playmate, yet there's no picture.. hmm.. maybe it doesn't matter, since they have the external links.. Grokstar 05:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Written by someone who thinks "erotica" means "photographs" ("Nude pictures prior to 1835 mostly consisted of paintings and drawings.") but wouldn't include those "arty" late 19th century photos of Neapolitan boys as erotica. All to get breasts on Wikipedia's front page. Copyvio in the 1950s photo is a minor detail. Mediocre as social history too. --Wetman 05:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe it should be renamed Photography of female nudes prior to 1923. Anyhoo, there are some basic structural problems with this article:
 * "Vintage" is an ambiguous word. Presumably it means no longer being produced, but more recent than "Antique" or "Ancient". However, the distinction isn't clear.
 * "Erotica" embraces a whole field of writings, art, films, etc. that would be a much longer article than this one.
 * Early 20th century section stuffed with filler on other artists in order to provide more room to accomodate anachronistic 1950s nude that has now been deleted; that section is now glaringly blank and urgently needs more nudes. 69.243.41.28 06:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)