Talk:Lusty Lady

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Pornography (Rated B-Class) Pornography Portal This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the project's importance scale. Seattle WikiProject (Rated B-Class) Lusty Lady falls within the scope of the Seattle WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Seattle, Washington, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Organized Labour     (Rated B-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Organized Labour Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. WikiProject Cooperatives     (Rated B-Class) Cooperatives Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, which collaborates on articles related to cooperatives. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within the cooperative movement. Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Lusty Lady was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Lusty Lady has failed, for the following reason:

The article is close, but misses some of the criteria for a good article. Bugmuncher 06:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

ALMOST - could use some tweaks here and there. It needs to flow a bit better.

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

MOSTLY, but the lead doesn't addresss the scope of the article.

(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style;

AS FAR AS I CAN TELL - I am no style expert yet. (My specialty is leads...)

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

YES

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

YES

(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory;

The newspaper articles should include bylines, and all web sources cited should include retrieval dates. see WP:CITE

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

YES

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

YES

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.

I think so

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

YES

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

YES

5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.

I did not check this.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

NEEDS BETTER CAPTION - See WP:CAPTION for advice.

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

This is pretty close! Maybe I'll contribute some changes myself tomorrow after I wake up...Bugmuncher 06:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Millennium

The reference to Lusty Lady in the TV series pilot Millennium was deleted as "pointless trivia". The section header, "Miscellaneous", was indeed ill-conceived, and I changed it to "Popular culture references". Other than that, I don't see how removal of this fact helps our readers: we should let the judgement of whether this trivia is pointless or not confidently up to them. The trivia lacked a source, so I added one. AxelBoldt 03:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)