Talk:Wank Week

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Wank Week has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Contents

[edit] Check the references, etc

I know the urge to tag this article for deletion is strong the moment you see the title, but check the references, etc. --Fabio 03:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scheduled for August

Since it's now September, this should already have been shown. I think somebody who saw the programmes should perhaps update the page. --Storkk 18:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's been shown yet. I think they're still trying to find compulsive masturbators for another programme. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still not shown yet and it's over a year later?

Crazy. If nothing comes up, we could consider this for deletion again.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff that was in the article but I took out

  • Michael Grade blurb - irrelevant. Hadn't been at Channel 4 for years. (For contextual purposes it might not be a bad idea to point out that Channel 4 has a reputation for controversy)
  • Date it was originally intended to be broadcast - actually the earliest articles e.g. from July 19, 2006 suggest that a date in 2006 was originally planned. There is a ref for March 2007, but it's clear from the July 2006 story that this probably wasn't the original intended date of broadcast.
  • Time that the films may be broadcast in the future
  • Description of what exactly Masturbation for Women/Girls was alleged to contain other than interviews with Betty Dodson (the DS reference states "in which three women "experience the revolutionary masturbation tutorials of Dr. Betty Dodson" but doesn't say what is shown on camera).

I removed that stuff; I think with the additional references, everything that appears in the text is now well-sourced. TheGrappler 09:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Written in clear language. Passes here.
2. Factually accurate?: Good use of citations, good sources. Passes here.
3. Broad in coverage?: I note that the most recent source used is from February 2007. Any mention in other sources since then? Also, do we really need the three redlinks? Are these notable articles that will likely be created in the future? Are they linked to from other articles as well? Any mention in sources other than news sources? Books or journal articles?
4. Neutral point of view?: Appears to be written in neutral wording. Passes here.
5. Article stability? Article is stable going back over one month, though there was a withdrawn AfD a while back, and some minor anon-ip editing before that, no major issues. Civil comments on talk page and in edit summaries.
6. Images?: No images are used in the article. Not required, but would it be possible to obtain any free-use or detailed rationale fair-use images?

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Once the above points have been addressed, message my talk page and I will take another look. Cirt (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Images - since the season was cancelled before being extensively trailed, it's no surprise there are no applicable logos/screenshots available. Any of the following three individuals might be worth including images of: Andrew MacKenzie (no wiki article yet, but one is plausible in the future), Charles Allen (businessman) or Jeremy Isaacs, since they were all involved in the dispute. However, no free images of them are on Wikipedia and I couldn't find any elsewhere, including searching flickr.
  • Recentness of references - it's not possible to find a reference to prove that it's current canned status persists, but the talk comments on this page are persuasive evidence that it all is still dead in the water. The most recent reference indicates that the season as such is pretty much a dead duck, but the content created for it is likely to reappear at some point. The article can be updated then.
  • Redlinks - are to articles which do not yet exist but which would pass notability requirements if they were created (e.g. TV shows broadcast on a major national network). James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture will definitely get an article at some point, it is a major event in the UK broadcasting year, always gathers a lot of media attention (i.e. navel-gazing?), and is the keynote event of a major international media festival.
Does this address your concerns? TheGrappler (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Pass

  • Meets the criteria. Thanks for addressing my concerns, from above. Cirt (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC).