Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Masturbation/archive1

Masturbation

Excellent article. Well written and cited and very through. Mercenary2k 12:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: without going in detail, I notice there is an odd mix between references in footnotes(<ref></ref>) and external links(like [16]) in the main text. If possible (and it ought to) I feel that all external links should be converted into footnoted references. WegianWarrior 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object—1a, 1b, 2a.

- "It can refer to excitation either by oneself or by another (see mutual masturbation). It is part of a larger set of activities known as autoeroticism ..."—This is contradictory: masturbation by another person is hardly autoerotic.
- References urgently needed in the lead.
- The lead doesn't prepare me for the greater level of detail in the body of the text.
- "Is believed to"—by whom? I want a reference if you're going to use that wording.
- Do we need to know about an "esoteric and little-used synonym" just below the ToC?
- "Female masturbation techniques are quite numerous and perhaps more varied than those of males."—"Quite" is not encyclopedic in this context (vague); nor is "perhaps".

I'm not bothering with the rest; I get the gist. It's vague and indulges in many sweeping, unreferenced claims. Tony 16:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Seriously. The lead needs work and the referencing is horrible. It mixes footnotes, direct external links and Harvard. More than that, there is at least one {{fact}} tag and huge sections of the article is unrefed. Please withdraw nom. Mikker ^(...) 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. per above. Sumoeagle179 00:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delisting this nomination per WP:SNOW. Bishonen | talk 06:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]