Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of sex positions

List of sex positions[edit]

This list no longer meets requirements:

1. It does not represent Wikipedia's best work.
2.1. It is not useful, as 59 positions are not linked.
2.3. It is not factually accurate (no inline citations).
5. Some images are excessively pornographic (see double penetration section) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic C62 (talk • contribs)

Delist per nom. -- Rmrfstar 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I find it a bit odd that this nomination was made after I did a lot of work to improve the page, I have to agree. It is not Wikipedia's best work and it is lacking in citations. In addition to the reasons listed, it also possibly fails requirement 3 by being contraversial, although not in the way that is usually meant, I think.

However, I do feel the need to defend it a bit. The claim of "no inline citations" is demonstrably false, as it does have a number of them, just not enough. Also, I disgree that the double penetration is overly pornographic (I challenge you to make an illustration for it that is less so). And moreover, that's irrelevant to requirement 5, which just says "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status". I take "appropriate" to mean "when they add something to the reader's understanding", which I believe is true here. Wikipedia is not censored. --Strait 02:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Strait. Let me restrict my objections to criteria #1, and #2.3 (not enough inline citations). I think some of the images could be better, but most are pretty good and that area's good enough. -- Rmrfstar 23:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]