Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations/Archive (2024)

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this page

This page lists Featured Article nominations that were posted on the Fanlore main page in 2024 or that were rejected during 2024 due to insufficient yes votes. For current nominations, visit Fanlore: Featured Article Nominations.

Approved nominations

Papa Don't Preach

Nominated by Kingstoken on November 28, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, and no content flags. I thought this vid might be a fun feature.

Yes: It's a fun vid --Auntags (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes: Good read! -- SecurityBreach (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes: Really interesting piece of history - and still interesting fandom blind!
Nomination approved.

Ororo Munroe/Logan Howlett

Nominated by Kingstoken on November 23, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, and no content flags. I thought this one might be fun to feature.

Yes: SecurityBreach (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes: Pushing my Valentine's Day FA Agenda Alpha (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes: Looks good! SCG (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Omegaverse Litigation

Nominated by SecurityBreach on Nov 15, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I think this is an interesting example of an attempt at commercializing a fannish genre.

Yes, Good read and good anecdote. -Alpha (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
No opinion, but if we decide to feature this page, I'd suggest protecting it from edits before its featured. This page was previously protected because of contentious and misleading edits to the page. I just don't want to see that happening again if we promote the page --Auntags (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I only hesitate because I know one of the authors involved is quite litigious, and has sent cease and desists to a Youtuber that talked about the topic, so I am hesitant to draw attention to this page. Other than that, the article is really well done. -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Changing vote to Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes: Very detailed and informative page on a hot issue that's since simmered down. Patchlamb (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Daycare Attendant

Nominated by Patchlamb on Nov 12, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. DCA is its own little pocket of Five Nights at Freddy's fandom that also spawned its own subfandom so I think it is interesting to feature, especially with the FNAF film having released recently.

Almost: I really like the article and would vote yes, but right now, I think that the canon section is too detailed and could benefit from clipping. SecurityBreach (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I trimmed the canon section, though I think what remains is short relative to the length of the article and adds context to the way some fans treat the DCA (specifically the naming conventions and Eclipse's existence). Patchlamb (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Voting yes after recent edit. SecurityBreach (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes: I reworded the lede the lede because I found it confusing. But a) I'm not in this fandom b) I'm not really familiar with language for talking about systems, and given the rest of the fandom discussion on the page I'd like someone with more familiarity on at least one of the two to look over the lede & make sure we're not misrepresenting things or going to offend most of the fandom or something. Thanks! -- Quaelegit (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Almost: I think there needs to be some mention in the lede of them being referred to with the names Sun and Moon, not just as sun/moon-themed, as that's what I kept hearing fans refer to them as (I'm not a fan myself, but FNAF is a Fandom-in-Law so I'm familiar with it to a certain extent), and the rest of the page itself refers to them as such too. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I edited "Sun and Moon" into the intro section, OfMonstersAndWerewolves. Patchlamb (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes: Changed vote :). -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes MPH 17:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Lumity

Nominated by OfMonstersAndWerewolves on 12th January 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Thought this could be a good one for Femslash February. I'm still improving it atm (mainly been focusing on the lede and gallery so far), but thought I'd nominate it now so I can get any ideas for things that might be missing.

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes. It's a good overview with a nice gallery and will be fun to feature for Femslash February (or maybe Lesbian Visibility Week if the schedule doesn't work?). I didn't know there were so many canon sapphic juggernaut ships from animated series. But I feel the article still has room to grow. "Common tropes" is an area to potentially focus on expanding. It might benefit from more detail on how fans approach these tropes. For example, Amity is said to be a different species than Luz, but this species isn't specified. Amity's article doesn't offer clarity on this matter. If canon is vague regarding her species, have fans developed any headcanons? What familial angst is the focus of hurt/comfort fics? Why do Amity and Luz start out as rivals? These aren't things someone unfamiliar with this series would know going into the article. A little illumination (bad pun, I know) could help the article really shine but it's good-to-go right now. Night Rain (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes -- I don't know the ship well at all, but it is a very solid article, good introduction. MomeRath (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Hollywood Walk of Fame

Nominated by SecurityBreach on January 8, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I think this is a very detailed and informative page about how a mainstream promotional institution affected fandom.

Yes: I had no idea that fans raised money for stars and this is a very interesting read. The intro might need a small bit of work - we should remove this line at least, "For more, see Wikipedia." --Auntags (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your feedback! I moved the line you mentioned to references. SecurityBreach (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Did you notice that all (but one) of the other links in the lede are also to Wikipedia? It seems weird to link to Wikipedia's articles Hollywood (the LA neighbordhood) and Hollywood Boulevard (the street) but not to the wikipedia article about the actual Walk of Fame itself (which has a lot of info we don't cover in our fanlore article). Can I add the wiki link back in somehow?? Maybe just an external links section at the bottom? (But then all the other wikipedia links are in the lede.....) Does anyone else have suggestions to solve this? -- Quaelegit (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Quaelegit, I'll add it back. The Wikipedia link was in a reference that I deleted for being excessive real-life information when reworking the lead. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Good catch! I removed those Wikipedia links because I don't think we need to link out to the pages for Hollywood or Hollywood Blvd. --Auntags (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes: - Interesting! SCG (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Not Yet: what's there seems really good, but all of the discussion/quotes are over 30 years old. The Walk of Fame still exists; I bet people are still fannish about it, can we get some more recent coverage/discussion on the page? -- Quaelegit (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
hey Quae, just a note because I'd talked about this with kingstoken - she may have told you this already but putting it down on record - the page does address this in the (current) last sentence of the intro: "In later years, this process was much less home-grown, and it has been completely taken over by official public relations." So just circling back to let you know this wasn't ignored, re more-recent content. (Also resolves one of PGR's points below). Joanna R (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Not yet:
* Page structure is confusing.
* Some sections are severely underdeveloped or missing information. For example, the Brian Keith section states that fans raised money through zines for his star - What spurred this? Were they successful? etc.
* Some sections read more as an essay than as an encyclopedia.
* Seconding Quealegit that the page is outdated; there are a large number of high-profile deaths over the last few decades that spurred fan activities along the Walk of Fame.
* Needs a page image. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes Though I'd recommend taking out the two Wikipedia links. I also just did a bunch of revision to the intro. As always, revise if needed. MPH 16:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes I added a section about the more commercial apsect nowadays. -- 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Kiss (Klimt painting)

Nominated by Distracteddaydreamer on Dec 9 2023. The page has a good intro, no content warning flags, and an extensive gallery of gorgeous art that crosses fandoms. Plus, Night Rain made the page for Art Noveau so it also is well linked to other fanlore pages. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: I love the amount of examples in the article, it really shows how popular this style is, However, examples aside, there is not a lot to the article itself, it is basically just the short intro paragraph -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes: changing vote after changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
This is "my" article and I'm similarly conflicted. I suppose that may be because it doesn't quite feel like an article for me. I think it would benefit from some prose content contextualizing this painting's relevance to fandom. On the other hand, I've also seen multiple articles built primarily around quotes become FAs, so I feel there may be some latitude in how Fanlore articles are constructed. Night Rain (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I like this kind of article a lot, where a trend in fandom is explored across multiple fandoms, it gives everyone something to read and shows some cool stuff in fandom culture. Do we have a good idea of what we'd want to add to make this a bit more of an article so we could feature it? -- FBV (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I added some fannish views found on Tumblr. There might be deeper discourse out there. This Guardian piece sums up why I've never liked the original. Night Rain (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Art history sort of pages aren't super common on Fanlore (see new fanlore project on it?) so we don't really have a model for what a "good" fandom art history page would be, i think. Which is to say I see your point but not sure what to add beyond the fannish views Night Rain brought up. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the new project! You're right that there currently aren't guideposts for making a "good" art article. This is definitely something we could discuss at a project level. In terms of this article, some possibilities for further development could be 1) expanding the short paragraph on canon imitations of The Kiss into a full section, 2) adding coverage of earlier fannish opinions and zine imitations of The Kiss (this is out of my wheelhouse, unfortunately). Night Rain (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes: The article definitely feels meaty enough to feature now, good work everyone!!(If we want more discussion -- maybe non-fannish Art History Rundowns of the painting? -- we can just stick them in the essay section.) And the gallery section has art from zines going back to 2006; and at least one from the 20th century. If people have the skills to dig for more older stuff that would be welcome but we're not neglecting that era entirely. I say feature it! -- Quaelegit (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Although maybe move the essay section to the bottom? That's where it usually goes & tbh I think more people will want to see the gallery (it's really impressive!) than the essays. In fact I'd even consider moving the tumblr quotes below the gallery... though that's the opposite of how we usually order things on fanlore. -- Quaelegit (talk)

22:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Wanted to weigh in with why the essays section is high up- it's because to me it feels like the expansion / explanation for why the Kiss has that appeal, since I don't have much art knowledge, and in my head it's like a description of the "canon" - though in this case if you're getting metatextual, it's the fan-responses to the painting that aren't art. But I agree the star of the show is the gallery, so I am supportive of arrangements that spotlight it. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes: Agreed with Quaelegit that this article is now meaty enough to feature. Loved the fannish views section and the gallery is nice. I think we could order the sections as 1. Gallery, 2. Fannish Views, 3. Fanart by Fandom, 4. Essays/articles. This would be an unusual ordering for Fanlore but I think bringing Gallery to the top may be appropriate for this kind of page. I'm also satisfied with the current layout. What do others think? -- FBV (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes: I had no idea that this has been used in so many fandoms (also added another). I know of another 90s Photoshop X-Files incarnation which doesn't seem to be online anymore and not archived :-/ -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

From Eroica With Love

Nominated by Kingstoken on October 1, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, it does have one content flag for "examples wanted" but I don't think that one is necessarily needed. This is an older Manga fandom that seems to have had quite a western following, so it might be really cool to feature it.

Not yet: Confusing, way too focused on canon, and needs cleanup.
  • Extremely messy lead with a lot of superfluous canon details and not much background on the fandom. Also, I'm not keen on linking to scanlation sites directly in the lead. I know legal stuff surrounding scanlations is weird and muddy, but doing so outright in the lead is very likely to attract piracy wank.
  • "Canon plot and backgrounds" section reads like a listings site, and not a summary or synopsis. There's a lot of tropes and influences lists, but I don't quite understand what the manga or its plot is after reading that section.
  • The same goes for the character section; the writing style is unclear and leaves me more confused than informed. The Characters and the Canon section could also likely be merged into a single section, with fandom stuff spun off into a Fandom section.
  • Pairings section feels incomplete and is too focused on canon.
  • Connections to Lead Zepplin is too focused on canon, and doesn't have many connections to fandom besides linking essays that are on other pages.
  • 45th Anniversary Tributes sections is incomplete and might need be cut, as it focuses on tributes created by professionals. Professionals can make fanworks, but this doesn't feel like a fanwork if it was part of an officially sanctioned tribute.
  • Stage play's inclusion in the fanworks section needs to be reviewed, from the article it's not clear if it's a fanwork or official
  • Online Resources and Resources sections are extremely messy and need to be cleaned up. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Not Yet: Article has an "Examples Wanted"-Flag for the time being, although the rest looks is okay, IMO. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I added some examples and removed the "Examples Wanted" flag. MPH 22:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that, MPH. It has now a International Focus Request Flag, but I guess sice this isn't a showstopper, so I'm changing my vote to Yes. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes: Voting yes after recent edits. SecurityBreach (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes: -JoeyW (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
No vote change. I've reworked the lead and cut a few things, but the page is still too focused on canon in a manner that is confusing and doesn't make sense for someone unfamiliar with this manga. The page is also largely focused on Western fandom, and I'd like to see some insight into the Japanese fandom. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I added some about the differences between Western and Japanese fandom. https://fanlore.org/wiki/From_Eroica_With_Love#Differences_in_Japanese_and_American_Fandom MPH 00:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes: There's always more than can be done on these articles, but I think what's there now is a good representation of what we want in a solid, balanced FL article. MomeRath (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes MPH 00:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Friends at the Table

Nominated by Distracteddaydreamer on 18 Feb 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro. I think it does a good job of providing context and then focusing on fandom activity for someone like me who's never heard of it before - and its a podcast, which I don't think we've featured something similar to recently. I thought the active existence of fangames for an ongoing podcast was super interesting. Many of the internal links exist and the category is pretty well fleshed out, though there's still content flags, i believe it can be removed and is more a matter of opinion. - Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes: I've done a lot of work on the page over the last six months or so, so I vote yes! :) I think you're right about the content flags - at this point they're mostly there to keep track of what would be nice to add to the page, which could easily be moved to the talk page. -Malcontent (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Almost: Good start, but needs some brushing up:
* The lead section is short and is written in a promotional tone. It name-drops a lot of people and lists the appeal of the show, but I don't understand who these people are, what the show is, or what separates it from other actual play podcasts in terms of content. The lead should also be expanded to include more information about the fandom.
* The article "List of Friends at the Table Seasons" could probably be merged into the Canon section of this article; tables for canon sections, while unusual, is not out of the question for anthology or serialized works.
* I'd like the Fandom Overview section to start with a summary of the fandom; it talks about how people got into the fandom, but it doesn't give me a good idea of what the fandom is like.
* I'd like the "Fan Reviews & Reponses" sections to include a summary of why fans like the show, rather than giving straight quotes without further context. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Sincere question, asked as the person who wrote the lead section as it currently is: what other information should the lead include? I'm asking because I always struggle to write lead sections. For context, I based it off of the Critical Role lead section, since Critical Role was featured a few years ago and that article includes roughly the same info: it's an actual-play series, it's hosted by Person X (I hear you re: the long cast list btw), + a brief quote about it (that's what the "critical worldbuilding...between good friends" bit actually is, I should have put it in quotes but was being cheeky because it's also a fandom in-joke). There's actually no fandom information at all in the lead for the Critical Role article, now that I'm reading it again. In the Friends at the Table article, I was hesitant to talk much more about the canon in that section since that's not what Fanlore is for, but also didn't know what fandom information should be included. -Malcontent (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes: There are an awful lot of red links in the ship section, but that is not a deal breaker. Overall, it seems like a good overview of the fandom. -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes: Rossi (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Time v.3.0

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 29, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Since it appears the Doctor/Master article may possibly not be approved I am going to suggest a different Doctor Who related article.

Yes - well structured article with plenty of interest. Rossi (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, mostly - though I'd like someone who understands it to give the lede a touch-up. What is "the fluidity that is the Whoverse"? -- Quaelegit (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Almost - Short, but sweet. The lead needs a brushup, and I'd like to see an original synopsis and not a quotation of the author-written summary. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This issue has been dealt with -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes: I've tried to add a bit of a synopsis to the intro, but this fic is very difficult to summarize. On the question Quaelegit asked, I think fluidity referes to the fluidity of canon. DW canon sometimes contradicts itself and fans usually just assume there's a time travel reason for the change. --Auntags (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes: Shout out to the Faction Paradox reference in one of the reaction quotes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

That's All (Due South vid)

Nominated by auntags on March 29, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. The intro might need some work. Its about a constructed reality vid that took two character who barely spoke and made them kiss xD

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The two links to the vid on the LiveJournal post: one won't download for me due to a "security risk" and the other one needs a password. Do you know if there's another place to watch it? MPH 00:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
You can download the vid from their website http://www.sdwolfpup.com/dsvids.html -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes: -- MPH 23:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes: MomeRath (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Doctor/Master

Nominated by Kingstoken on January 11, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I thought this one might be fun to feature considering this is a long standing enemyslash ship. It does have a long canon section but I think that is somewhat understandable.

Yes:[Edit: removing my vote pending article reformatting] Though lots of external links that we should try to add archive backups for. -- Quaelegit (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Almost: I think the canon section could be streamlined a bit. I need to go through the rest and see if there's anything major that might need adding to the fandom bits too. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Gonna post this on the talk page too but: we have this page of The Doctor/The Master in general, but we also have Twissy, SpyDoc, and Ten/Master pages. I'm wondering whether we could create some of the other popular versions, like Three/Master, and then move a lot of the canon stuff specific to each era that's still relevant over to those pages instead? Or heck, even just those three already made as there's literally no canon section in any of them. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Updated Thoughts: Looking much better, though now the lede looks too short. Might see if I can add to it a little to make it a bit more substantial and I should be able to change my vote to yes. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Change of vote to Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Not yet: Extremely long lead that needs to be brushed. Also, I know the canon section will be long no matter which way you slice it, but it takes up the majority of the article, at around 5k words, as compared to the fanon's section 1.7k, minus the bottom lists. Raw word count isn't everything sure, but it's an indication that there's either not enough fandom aspects documented, or we're detailing too much when giving context. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes: I enjoyed reading this article very much and I'll try and put some work into those internal links. Thank you very much for nominating! SecurityBreach (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes: The Doctor articles are usually quite long, since this is an ongoing show for what ... 60 years now? Lot's of canon and fannish engagement here -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes MPH 00:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Asexuality and Fandom

Nominated by Distracteddaydreamer on Dec 2 2023. The page has a good intro. Though it has an examples wanted content flag for discourse, but I believe it can be removed even if there is still more discourse that can be included. It's well fleshed out, especially the examples, and I think it would be interesting to queer people in fandom. There's also potential scope for improvement if more people get their eyes on it since it's a very broad topic!

Maybe: I think before featuring a few issues would have to be dealt with: one the intro I think needs to fleshed out a little bit more, right now it is basically a definition and then it goes into mentioning fictosexuals, which I found confusing when I first read it. I'm also not sure I like the way it's formatted, like it goes from the intro right into a list of ace characters, I'm wondering if it might be better to move the list down, although I'm not sure, but I think it needs better flow overall -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I see your point, though I'm not sure I have the bandwidth to go in and fix it. Thank you for pointing out these issues!
Changing vote to Yes because of changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Almost: The intro does need fleshing out, but overall its a good page that looks at the main points around the depiction of asexuality in fan discussions and works. I'm going to propose making Ace a disambiguation page on the talk page, but I don't think that should impact the decision to feature or not. --Auntags (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes. It's an informative overview of the subject in its current form. That said, I do feel there are potential areas for expansion, and would prefer clearer delineatation between canonically ace characterss and interpretations/headcanons. Could also do with a proofread. Night Rain (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe: An admittedly quick skim through and I feel like there's things missing. Particularly around acephobia and the rise of ace discourse around 2016-ish, especially on Tumblr, and how that affected fandom. I'll take a look at some point and see if I can add anything. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes: I agree that whole LBTQ discourse/non-inclusion sectionin "Inclusion in Queer Spaces" is bit short, but still a good article. Maybe featuring it will help expanding that section? -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes: Rossi (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • No: I've added to the article, but information on the page as it stands currently feels too cluttered for it to be featured article worthy. The topic is so broad though that I don't know how it could be edited better... Maybe discourse should come before characters? --Cavewomania (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes: Reworked intro to include a paragraph about ace fans and communities. Columnized the fanworks section so it takes up less space. Added content to aphobia section and removed examples wanted template. Structure looks good now. -- FBV (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Barbverse

Nominated by auntags on Apirl 5, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. A fanfic series that's been going for 20 year and it's still not finished.

Yes: Interesting! Do we know if this series has inspired any fanworks like fanart? -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I added some to the bottom of the article but I fear alot of related fanworks are lost to closed down forums and deleted LJ accounts. I know Barb created some art for her own work, but all the image links I could find are broken. --Auntags (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes: I think this is good! I dug around on the author's Tumblr and found a comic she'd drawn set in the universe, and have added that to the page as well for a visual. Castille (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, though: For such a long series and apparently quite beloved, I really did expect more fan activity / discussion. It's weird to me to not see it on the article, but a cursory search didn't turn up much I could figure to add. I also was looking for critical discussion, but couldn't really see much besides people who didn't like kidfic, and I don't think that's necessary for an article like this. But it really is the rare million word fic that has mostly fans, low activity, and high praise :0 or maybe I'm hanging out in the wrong circles. ETA: clarification, not a bad thing. But since I'm not in the fandom I just want to be sure the coverage is relatively complete! -Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Rejected nominations

Chin-Stroking Scene

Nominated by Distracteddaydreamer on Dec 5 2023. The page has an intro & no content warning flags, and concisely fleshes out why this scene had any significance. I think it's interesting because MCU is such a big fandom and it crosslinks to pages that are well-fleshed out like Hydra Trash Party. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: I think this needs a little bit of work before featuring. The intro describes the scene but not how it connects to the fandom. There is a citation needed tag in the Hydra Trash Party section. Also, I'm not sure why "Winterbaron Pairing" is under controversial, it seems like some of the tropes used in fic are themselves the issue, and I'm sure not every Winterbaron shipper uses those tropes, although I could very well be wrong about that -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I added a sentence to the lede summarizing the discussion of HTP & Winterbaron further down on the page, but I'm not into this fandom at all so it would be better if someone who knows more could go over it & recontextualize the scene better. And why is the first section "behind the scenes"??? That needs to be worked into the article better (why are we even talking about BTS? Did fans care about it? Did the BTS tweets make them care about the original scene or was the scene already popular for itself? Did it shape the discourse/common interpretations of the scene??? Idk that all of these questions need to be answered I'm basically just shooting in the dark trying to figure out why that section is so prominent in the article). -- Quaelegit (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Not Yet: I do think this could be made into a feature article, and once Kingstoken's concerns are addressed I'd like to re-evaluate! In the meantime, perhaps we could nominate Hydra Trash Party instead?? as Distracteddaydreamer it's quite fleshed out as well, and makes more sense as a page if you're not already familiar with the relevant fandom. -- Quaelegit (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I see your point! I don't really know this fandom well, but talk around dead-dove stuff is topical and MCU is a biiig fandom, which are the reasons I nominated this. I think given these concerns we can retire this nomination early because I'm not familiar with this fandom and I won't be able to fix it HAHA Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Not Yet: One of the shorter articles that has a "Needs Citation" flag, which should be adressed, since this could by wanky, if this not PPVO . -- 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
  • No: I added a little to the page to reword some things. I think its a cute article for a cute subject, but not featured article worthy unless info is clarified more. Definitely "Needs Citation." --Cavewomania (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination rejected: it has been three months and the issues have not been dealt with, plus the original nominator asked that it be rejected because they did not currently have the time to improve it.

On-Hold nominations

Blocking of AO3 in China

Nominated by Distracteddaydreamer on March 16 2024. The article has a strong intro, no content flags, and a really long list of references and research. Especially if we want to have a focus on non-english speaking fangroups, I think this was a big incident particularly for cn slash fans. There are some areas where I think we can improve coverage (see section I added to the talk page) - and maybe it could be broken up a little for length - but its overall well-organized and shows a wide range of fan views and an effective breakdown of the situation. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes: --Auntags (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe: it is a very well filled out article, however I worry about possibly featuring it, because it could draw a lot negative attention, it being a still somewhat contentious issue -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
On Hold: Acting as Fanlore chairs, we are placing this nomination on hold until further notice - details on the article's Talk page. Joanna R (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Fanlore:Featured_Article_Nominations/Archive_(2024)&oldid=2606772"