Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paragraph 175/archive1

Paragraph 175

Self-nomination. Amys and I have collaborated on this; Amys wrote the German-language original, I mostly translated (with some consultation). The German-language article is currently a FAC in the German Wikipedia. -- Jmabel 08:35, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Object - lead section is too long, first image needs to be explained what it is! I have no idea what I'm looking at, and the image itself has no explanation of what it's meant to be. Otherwise this is an excellent collaboration! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Captioned the photo better; I'll have to think about how I might better handle the lead section. Is there anything in particular you think could be appropriately dropped from the lead section? -- Jmabel 09:48, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• The lead section seems to try to give the whole history of the law, when really this could go into it's own section. That's my impression, anyway. Just give a single leading paragraph with a brief explanation of what Paragraph 175 is and why it's important/signficiant and incorporate the rest of the text into the article body. Don't drop this info, in case that's what you were thinking of doing!!!! It's really very good. If you could do that I'll strike all my objections and strongly support this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, I've sectioned out an "historical overview". What do you think now? -- Jmabel 19:53, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Support! Much better :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 22:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Generally lead sections on de. are painfully long. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:59, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
  • Actually, that didn't mostly come from de. What I had done was generally to preserve the earlier, short English-language article as a lead section. As I say, I've now broken it up. -- Jmabel 22:04, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: Given that it's entirely based on German law, perhaps some actual quotes as well as the translations would be in order? James F. (talk) 09:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Sorry, this was meant to be "Support; however, given that [...]". James F. (talk) 22:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC))
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "actual quotes"; quotes from what? Please clarify. -- Jmabel 09:48, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • As in, quotes of the German, rather than just translations. James F. (talk) 10:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The section "Texts of the various versions of Paragraph 175" begins by saying "For the original German language texts of the statutes, as well as quotations from earlier sodomy statutes, see the equivalent German-language wikipedia article." So they are one link away. Others (before the FAC nomination) already criticized the article for containing too many German words and I've been trying to meet that objection by limiting those to the ones on which important legal points depend. I think this is a case where the article can't please everyone. -- Jmabel 19:33, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • I have no idea how this works if James F. won't respond to this. I've pinged his talk page twice asking for response, but haven't gotten any. -- Jmabel 23:21, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, I think it's quite good. Everyking 12:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support, subject to a little streamlining of the lead. Denni☯ 17:51, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

• Support. I found this article fascinating, never having heard of it before. I think there are many who would be surprised that there was legal and social opposition to this type of law as far back as the 1890s. func(talk) 19:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. -Seth Mahoney 18:39, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Quadell (talk) 20:16, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Seems well researched and thorough. Cyopardi 15:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Surport. tooto 17:16, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC), looks like a good artical
• Support. ~ FriedMilk 07:08, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. d 07:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)