Wikipedia:Peer review/Strip club/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Strip club[edit]

(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in submitting it as a Featured Article candidate.

In particular, I would like feedback on:

  • (1b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
  • (1c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic.
  • (2b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
  • (4) Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.

The recent focus has been to frame the article around specifics of the business while also acknowledging its social aspects (without diving too deep). At this point feedback from people not looking at it for hours on end would be a big help.

Thanks, Wallanon (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to all by Wallanon

Face-smile.svg Thank you - You've all been a big help. -Wallanon (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs
  • Well, kudos for attempting to get something like this to a respectable quality, that's a mental task I could never accomplish :P Since you listed stuff in an order, I'll try to hew to it:
    • 1b: I think that a little more context could be used. The problem with wikilinking is that it often serves as a crutch, and we (without thinking too much about it) just link stuff rather than explaining. Take, for example, the lead. "A strip club is a nightclub or bar where striptease is regularly performed by strippers, possibly offering related services such as lap dancing." Explaining some of the terms (what a stripper is and what a striptease is) makes it clear from the opening what the article's about without having to link away (if I were a total ignoramus, I wouldn't have any inkling what risque business is going on here :P). Because of web habits, if someone has to click on a link to find out what it means, they are often not going to return to the main page, and since not everyone has popups (or in a print version linking is useless) it's best to explain. Also, spelling out what these terms are has the side benefit of reducing the number of times you see "strip" in the same sentence.
 Wallanon is doing... Done descriptions for context (strippers, striptease, etc) earlier in the article. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
      • "The better appointed a club, the more likely it is to encounter cover charges and fees for premium features." — what's "better appointed" mean? What about "VIP" and "champagne lounge"? Things like this.
 Wallanon is doing... Done added quick def (or link) for appointments and other specific terms. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    • 1c/1d: I think in terms of presenting complaints about clubs, etc., the article is good. The giant problem with the article, however, is its scope. The world view is present in some parts, but not in others. Things like layout and staff seem to only necessarily apply to US businesses, and most areas like marketing only have US figures. This is a huge issue; unless you can find good high-quality sources that suggest the strip club is an American form of entertainment, the article needs to be recast with a more global perspective. I know that's certainly hard, and perhaps parts of the article can be spun off into a US-centric article, but I think this is the main issue with the article.
I plan to respond to each of the items, but whether or not to spin out some of the content into a US-focused article is something I've been weighing so I'll lead with that. I have a couple of sources that imply it is an American form of entertainment (in its current form), but am on the fence about whether or not the article would benefit from it. Europe and Australia clearly have published material that line up with the descriptions, but Asia and Africa are much tougher for sourcing and Latin and South America are thorny just splitting out strippers from hookers. In many countries around the world the two are synonymous. The challenge has been to try and describe what can be a legitimate business (and is in many cases) from the inevitable close association with more controversial topics. Some strippers are prostitutes, but many of them are not. Some of them are also sex slaves performing against their will, but many of them elected to go into the business and view it like any other job. And for this article, it is really is the management and operations that are the focus and how they could be possibly connected to all of these other things. As I'm sitting here now, I'm leaning towards a split if I can't pull in more global source material in the next day or two. It would take some doing, though. As always, anybody who might be reading this and wants to take a crack at improving the article is welcome. Thanks. - Wallanon (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
So I'm taking another look over the comments, and something that came to mind is where to center the article. I opted on the rewrite to center it on the structure and management of the clubs (the business view). I suppose there are alternatives more focused on the strippers or on striptease itself inside the clubs. Does anyone think the three should have equal weight in the strip club article? My thought would be it would distract, but multiple comments have shown an interest in having more of the article focused on the activity in the club. - Wallanon (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Idea: Not sure why I didn't think about this sooner - Japanese Wikipedia, etc.. It's a little disappointing the article had exactly zero inline references, but it's a starting point, right? - Wallanon (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done added financial figure for global strip club industry - Wallanon (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 Wallanon is doing... Done content additions for global scope is more areas of the article. Making it more clear where content is global already since the Western (U.S.) style of striptease is presented globally. Opting to do this by describing subtle distinctions throughout. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not flawless, but the article is more balanced now between the U.S. and the rest of the world. American influence on global strip club industry established and cited inline. -Wallanon (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

    • 2b: The lead might be improved with some reorganizing. Since you've got bolded terms, I think explaining what the clubs are (see my 1b comments) and then following it up with other nomenclature, and then the prevalence of such locations, would make more sense than jumping to the legislation bit. Some details seem a little too specific for the lead (like the part around the VIP, etc.) and overall it could be shortened a bit.
 Wallanon is doing... Done revision of the article lead. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
      • In some places the subsections seem a tad too detailed; generally, I try to avoid creating single-paragraph subsections. Merging together "Premium access zones", "Performers", "Top clubs", and some of "General admission zones" might be advisable (esp. "Top clubs", as its predicated on one single source, which seems a bit iffy and undue weight.)
Top Clubs actually had three sources, but only one list was included as an example since the other two referenced are dynamic lists. The intended point to my leaving it there after the rewrite was to show U.S. style strip clubs were globally accepted. The whole pop culture section needs to get built out, but since it will be the easiest to write I haven't given it much time. Was holding out hope someone else would do it. - Wallanon (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done Did restructure some of the sections and moved content around. Left the premium sections split out so they had section anchors. Will probably expand but would like to find more photos first to enhance content. -Wallanon (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
    • 4. Length is good for now, but as world content needs to be added, some sections might be best if streamlined.
 Wallanon is doing... Done revising content of sections for flow and ordering. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Most of the "See also" terms can be removed, as they are linked in the body.
 Wallanon is doing... Done revising and expanding see also. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Every once in a while I saw glaring typo/grammar issues ("which in includes strip clubs"), which suggests that a closer look and copyedit by uninvolved editors would be warranted to get to a professional standard.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 Wallanon is doing... Done will request a copy edit once the major revisions sugeested in the peer review are completed. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with David's comments above. For most of its length the article might as well be titled Contemporary American strip club. Any world perspective only appears in sections, and there is no history section at all, when in fact the industry as described has only appeared in the last ?25 years - before that I think things were very different. In fact the history bit would I expect be the easiest to source from books; as it is the sourcing is rather reliant on a diverse collection of newspaper articles. Main stage is not the "main article" for that section, & really should not be linked at all, as it is about something very different. Theatre in the round could be dropped too. The article doesn't really describe the central performances very well, relying on links to striptease, stripper etc. You have to read several screens down, for example, before it is implied that music is played during performances, unless I missed that. A clear description of what happens inside should be added. I'm not sure the accounting material really belongs in the lead. Sorry to be negative! Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Before I get to the rest of it, I agree that a little more description of the entertainment is warranted and I'll get to it ASAP. But the main response I want to make here is that strip club not an article about striptease (which has its own article referenced prominently at the top). It is about strip clubs and how they operate. More specifically, it is about how U.S.-style strip clubs operate around the world, since the variance from what is described here falls pretty quickly into prostitution. Brothels have their own articles, too. You are exactly right that the industry as described applies to the last 30 years because those are the businesses being described. I can put in material linking strip clubs to burlesque, which should connect things on the bigger timeline, but I have not found any references to go further than that (pre-1960's). Would welcome help if anyone can bring more to the article on its history. In the short term I plan to borrow liberally from the striptease article just to get coverage. Prostitution and human trafficking are being discussed as orthogonal topics. Unfortunately, because rigorous research is limited (with the seminal research from the 70's being very dated) and public disclosure of financials outside of the U.S. is even more limited, it makes the article appear to be narrow. I am looking into references that make a well-referenced attempt to estimate the global market, but that is precisely all it will ever be. If you drop a U.S. style strip club in the middle of another country it is still a U.S.-style strip club. I've seen them in multiple countries, but have only included material I could source since I would really rather not have the specter of "original research" hanging over the article. Not discounting the perspective because I can understand it, but scope creep is something I have been trying to avoid and don't mind putting that out for discussion. I definitely see some things I'd like to revise from the comments, though, and appreciate the help. Thanks. - Wallanon (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done Added a history section with broad coverage - Wallanon (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 Not done Have left references to stage arrangements. Will ultimately put a little more time into main stage to modernize it so it fits better with the reference from strip club. Strip clubs are essentially theaters, and the connections to the theater encyclopedic content is valid. - Wallanon (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done Added more sourcing from books. News articles dominate sourcing for convenience and they better capture nuances of present day clubs and activities that books might not capture. - Wallanon (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 Wallanon is doing... Done revision of the article lead. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 Wallanon is doing... Done description of what happens in strip clubs closer to the article top. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment by Ruhrfisch I noticed that the article has several photos of what are probably copyrighted images / art. For example File:Strip Club Advertising.jpg is almost certainly copyrighted by the advertiser and so would be a WP:FAIR USE image (even if the license says it is free, I think the license is incorrect). I am not as sure about the neon art, but artworks are also copyrighted and so these images may also need to be justified under fair use rules. Please see WP:NFCC too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for the feedback. Will address it all in turn, but this one I wanted to respond to immediately since it should be quick. If it is a public billboard and shown in that context I cannot see how it would need to be justified as fair use. It was intended to be put on public display exactly as referenced (as a billboard). - Wallanon (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not an image expert, but I do know that public sculpture like Cloud Gate is both meant for public display and also copyrighted, so that the article on the sculpture only has one real image of it under WP:NFCC. You might wasnt to ask one of the regular FAC image reviewers ahead of time or have a fair use rationale ready if the image(s) are questioned at FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted works, even in public venues, are still copyrighted. "Freedom of panorama" exists in a US setting only for buildings. You can argue that a free image with copyrighted content is still free, but that depends on the objective and subject of the work—a person that happens to be wearing a Bart Simpson tshirt is different than photographing just the tshirt, for example. It's a grey area, but given the context I'd say that the image could be considered non-free; other's mileage may vary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 Wallanon is doing... Not done considering the billboard issue. Agree with the comments overall on the advert content, but the photo is of the billboard structure which happens to have the advert on it. Seems like overkill to mess with the license, but if it looks like a problem will address (or possibly remove from the article). -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Will leave as-is for now. Should be straightforward to resolve if it becomes an issue down the line. -Wallanon (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)