The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 08:35, 21 May 2009 [1].
This is an important topic but the article has numerous problems. The citation style is a mess, there are many references that I wouldn't be able to find in the real world if I wanted to because I simply can't tell what the footnote means; I am slowly working on cleaning up the footnotes to use a consistent format, but there are still a lot that I can't deal with. Furthermore, many areas of the article are poorly written (for example, until I changed it just now, there was a bit that read "one source from 2005 says...." rather than naming the source...I can dig up more problem sentences if needed, although generally I just fix them as I come across them), and I feel no one has been watching it in years so all kinds of junk has slipped in (out of the 7 editors who have made more than 5 non-minor edits to the article, I am the only one who has edited it more recently than 2007). The article structure doesn't make much sense; I've left comments at the talk page, but here is a copy of the important part: "The article structure itself is also not that great. The Foreign prostitutes in China is just sort of sitting out there, not well-integrated into anything. The Legal responses, Policing, and The question of legalisation sections are each in 2nd-level headers, but appear to be about more or less the same thing, so it's not clear what they're doing as separate sections."
It would be great if this article could be cleaned up to get it back to FA standard. I personally don't have the knowledge or resources to do it all, though. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Beijing Office for Women's Production and Education.jpg: no information on first publication. DrKiernan (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
