Talk:Jacobson v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Jacobson v. United States has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 23, 2007 Peer review Reviewed June 7, 2007 Good article nominee Listed September 20, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Pedophilia. For guidelines see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

	Pornography Portal This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contents 1 Good Article nomination notes 2 Good article review 3 Successful good article nomination 4 GA review — kept 5 The government itself was the biggest producer?

[edit] Good Article nomination notes

I believe this article to be complete and comprehensive enough for GA status. There is only issue I can imagine someone having: the absence of images, which is not unusual in articles about court cases. I have some ideas which I will try to implement whenever I feel this article is ready for an FA nom, but for GA I think it can pass without images. (There are also some other law review articles about the decision's impact that I will be trying to get).

If there are any concerns, let me know. Daniel Case 17:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yep, easy to read and does a good job of using prose to explain fairly complex legal issues.

2. Factually accurate?: very attentively cited

3. Broad in coverage?: very thorough. Some sections could possibly even be shortened

4. Neutral point of view?: does a good job of presenting both sides

5. Article stability? yep

6. Images?: a lack of images does not disqualify an article from GA status

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — JayHenry 02:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review — kept

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,Ruslik 07:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The government itself was the biggest producer?

When it says "The government itself was the biggest producer, in the form of materials it created to tempt buyers." in the end of section 1.1, what does this mean? Surely the government was not producing child porn by photographing or filming children performing sexual acts or poses? I would imagine it was more along the lines of repackaging child porn that had been previously created by others and that had been confiscated by law enforcement. I think it could be made clearer how the material the government was uses to temp buyers was actually created. --Cab88 12:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of semi-quoted from one of the sources. No, the government was not producing its own kiddy porn. But it was producing all the catalogs and brochures it mailed out to people it was trying to tempt to buy it, often (as I would imagine such catalogs would), providing a tantalizing tease of what the actual materials would be, and in the process likely using more innocuous images from its own stock of confiscated kiddy porn (knowing that savvy buyers would not expect catalogs from real companies to show such images since they were already against the law, and sending a catalog with such explicit images would be a violation itself). Daniel Case 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)