A fact from Sex Panic! appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 February 2009, and was viewed approximately 3,227 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that sexual activism group Sex Panic! criticized the efficacy of 1990s US anti-HIV campaigns that, they argued, demonized public sexual culture?
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
I rated this article as C class. I think the content and sourcing are B level, so some rearranging and MoS changes would get it there. Some suggestions:
Merge small sections, eg naming, which is unlikely to ever grow would be better in the origins section rather than a subsection.
I created a capitalisation redirect, might want to check if others are needed.
To this article, you mean? It now has Sex Panic, SexPanic, SexPanic!, and Sex panic! to choose from, as well as the auto redirects when initial caps are missing, so I think it's pretty much covered now. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an organisation Logo? Would certainly be ok for fair use.
Any other free images? The founder? Their main meeting place? Any of their activities?
Many thanks for taking the time to rate this, Yobmod, and for the very useful suggestions for improvement. I'll have a crack at the enhancements you've suggested, and see if I can find any other editors who want to do so too. Trying to track down images with certain obvious search terms has proved... hair-raising, heh, but maybe I'll turn on safesearch and give it another try. Or just wait til I'm not in public :)
OK if I resubmit for rating at WPLGBT when it's in better shape? Gonzonoir (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. The project can only assess up to B class, and i think if everything i wrote above is done, this might pass GA, but is better to reassess before going through GAN (which can take 40+ days).
Q: Do they still exist? If so, they must have a web-presence somewhere. A link in the article would be a good idea if so.YobMod 11:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the thing: I couldn't find one (this article itself has now nudged onto the first page of Ghits for the term), which makes me suspect the organization is defunct, but I can't find proof either way. I was planning to try to contact some of the members, in case any of them can point me to further information - I thought they might be a good potential source for images, too - but I need to get clear on WP's policy for donating content first. Planning to read up on that next. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct, per "Regulating Sex: The Politics of Intimacy and Identity", published in 2005.[1]. John Nagle (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find a decent image or two to add to this article, but coming up nearly blank. There's what looks like a probable old logo here, but that instance alone wouldn't meet verifiability standards and I wouldn't know where to begin justifying the use or investigating copyright. So that looks like a bust.
A few individual pictures of founder members are available, so that's an a possibility, though I'm slightly concerned about WP:UNDUE. Anyone have any other thoughts? Gonzonoir (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
