Talk:Free the nipple: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:18, 23 June 2015

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Northeastern University/Online Communities (2015-1-Spring)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Class Feedback

Awesome article, I wasn't aware about the early laws regarding toplessness. Not sure if this is possible, but if so, it might be cool to look into how the campaign has made strides - has instagram changed their policies at all? It's a little ridiculous that female nipples aren't allowed when you consider the other things people are allowed to post. -Shannclark (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Looking good, some thoughts:

can you mention the names of the men?
"The men, who wandered about the hot beaches of Coney Island completely topless, were subsequently arrested."
- "These men" (or there names)?
- Can you confirm it was hot on the day of their arrest?

-Reagle (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verify "Free the Nipple" phrase used as a campaign?

First, you have a great writing style! That really stands out to me.

A few comments: the history section has list of general campaigns for toplessness, but the article title seems to refer to a specific campaign called "Free the Nipple". So in reading the history section, I was expecting to see a section or mention of when "Free the Nipple" actually came into use. In other words, the article is titled "Free the Nipple", but I don't have a sense of when that phrase actually came into popularity.

I also have some concerns around whether you're presenting original research. This is a tricky thing to sort out sometimes, so let me know if you want help. You've done a great job of finding a lot of sources out there, but note the guideline that "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." I'm not at all certain you've run afoul of this! I haven't read your article closely enough to tell, so you might be totally fine, I just think it would be useful to go back over it with that guideline, plus guidelines around synthesis, in mind.

One more little tweak: I don't think you need brackets around your source titles in the references, and where you've got a website like HG.org, it helps to spell out in detail what that group is. (I'm not sure what that group actually is? Maybe you can find a better source for this.)

You've got a great start here, again with nice formatting and a good writing style -- congratulations! AmandaRR123 (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing Issues

I think the sources are ok per wikipedia standards, but they're not good.

The problem is that the source is of dubious quality, and does not cite where they get their information. I'm going to spend a few minutes trying to dig up better sources, and encourage others to join me. In particular, arguments about historic views towards male toplessness are powerful but leave a skeptic questioning the sweeping statements made in the HuffPo article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.queso (talk • contribs) 04:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nerve.com/love-sex/a-visual-history-of-bare-skin-laws-through-the-ages <<similar unsourced claims/quality as existing articles

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2617930/Was-exercise-fad-Men-wear-suits-ties-work-machines-1800s.html <<interesting pictures that might be relevant-- men working out in Victo5rian England in full suits. By the way, this may be common knowledge, but in Victorian England, I've heard/read that nudity was discouraged even when bathing solo. A source and a mention of this fact could be relevant to the article

https://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I92_0160.htm <<the actual court ruling from 192