Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

WIP: We're working on this admin article!

This page lists active nominations for future featured articles. For general information about the featured article process, consult Fanlore:Featured Articles.

Nomination criteria

Featured Article nomination requirements lists criteria that should be considered when nominating a potential new Featured Article page.

Adding a nomination

To add a nomination, add a subsection with the format below in the 'Current nominations' section of this page. Featured Article Nomination process has additional information.

=== [[Page title]] ===

Nominated by [[User:Username|]] on DATE. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. 

(Add other comments here)

Commenting on a nomination

Check out the sections below and add your approval, rejection or other comments. If you have reservations about the quality of a nominated article, please explain why. All editors are welcome to fix problems that have been flagged up and say the issue has been resolved. Make sure to bold the main word(s) in your vote: 'yes,' 'no,' 'hesitant yes,' and so on.

Please don't forget to sign your comments ("~~~~" will insert your name and date)):

* '''Yes.''' That looks great! --~~~~
* '''Yes.''' Good one! --~~~~
* '''Hesitant yes.''' Maybe that intro could be fleshed out a bit more? It doesn't really explain much. --~~~~
* '''No.''' This needs more [[PPOV]]. --~~~~

Please do not remove any nominations, or edit content signed by other users. Fanlore staff and gardeners monitor this page and will archive or move nominations to the list of upcoming nominations as needed.

Past nominations

Current nominations

Virtual Season

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on June 4, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

I think this is a really cool topic (and not something I'd come across until very recently) and the page is quite comprehensive, though most of it is taken up by a list of examples. Do people think it's worthy of a feature? Does anything need adding first? I'd love to hear thoughts. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: interesting topic, but it still feels like the article needs something, maybe some fan reaction, I'm not sure -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:48, 04 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Kingstoken, it needs some fan reactions. MPH MPH (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I also would like to see some Fannish reactions there as well. How are Virtual Seasons seen in some of fandoms, for example if shows get rebooted later. Maybe some of this can be found in some of the articles linked in the list on the article? WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes I'd also like to see some meta here in regards to this. --Mlemley (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Metafandom

Nominated by Elfwreck (talk) on June 10, 2018. Good basic page covering part of fandom history that newer fans aren't likely to be aware of.

Hesitant Yes: Feels a bit short, but I guess that there isn't more on the topic? WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant yes: I think there's more that can be added by the way of fan reaction - I've poked around a bit and already found some more comments that can be incorporated. It sounds like this newsletter was a pretty important part of fandom, so it'd be good to reflect that with more anecdotes. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:00, 01 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I thought it had pretty balanced commentary on either side and a good intro. --Mlemley (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes from me. MPH (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Fan Run

Nominated by WhatAreFrogs? onJune 25, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. My first article nomination, ever. I worked quite a lot on this, please let me know what you think.

Not yet. Interesting general article, but needs to be thoroughly SPaG beta'd. Greer Watson (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it is such a broad topic that the article doesn't quite feel cohesive enough for me. -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:46, 04 July 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant yes It has the bones of what could be a great article, and mentions some of the sites that caused problems in the past, but I think it could do with mentioning some of the events as well, such as 2009 GeoCities Shutdown or Strikethrough and Boldthrough

Dalton

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on July 3, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags, and is very detailed.

Influential fanfic in Glee fandom, that spawned its own fan following -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:22, 03 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes! Very detailed and interesting page. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 09:31, 08 July 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes The page is very detailed, however there are a lot of red links. Mlemley (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

RaceFail '09

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on July 10, 2018. As of this writing, the page has an intro and no content flags.

Not yet but almost. I think this will be a great Featured Article, but there are a few issues to sort out before we go forward - I've made some edits to the page and flagged unaddressed issues on the talk page. (It's mostly citation/reference stuff.) - Fandomgeographies (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant yes Overall it does a good job of explaining the event and has a lot of reaction, but the beginning of the How It Began Section is... idk it just throws me off a bit. Mlemley (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Foresmutters Project

Nominated by fandomgeographies on July 25, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Hesitant Yes: For an article with a lot of quotes it has very little citation -- Kingstoken (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe that all of the quoted comments are sourced from the reference mentioned in footnote 2. If it needs to be formatted differently, I can work on that? - Fandomgeographies (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes - Thank you, Fandomgeographies, if you would do that citation work. MPH (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC) One of the most interesting things about this page is the incredible push-back from some very vocal fans who felt threatened by this project. MPH (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Citations have been added for the quoted comments! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes Super interesting! I really loved seeing the conversation, especially. Hoopla (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Almost yes: The page has a wealth of valuable detail on the reaction to the project at the time it was created, but what it feels like it's missing is some more recent perspectives on the project. One thing I uncovered is that Foresmutters Project was the very first test case for the Open Doors archive preservation project, which is hugely significant and definitely deserves a section. I would also love to add some more recent fan commentary about the project and its legacy, if there is any to be found. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes Lots of great commentary and a great way to plug the Open Doors Project. Mlemley (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The Wave Theory of Slash

Nominated by fandomgeographies on July 25, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes --- I added more comments to the linked discussion page to give 1993 context and reactions. MPH (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Almost yes It's a hugely important essay and definitely deserves a feature. As I read through the page and delved into many of the other meta essays which reference and draw on it, I wished that the page reflected more of the impact that the Wave Theory had on the meta which came after it. I realise that the Fan Discussion and Meta subpage deals with meta created in response to the essay, but I think that the main page suffers because of how much important content is contained within that subpage.
Is there a way that we could confine the scope of the subpage a bit more (e.g. to focus just on fan reaction), or incorporate more of its content into the main page? I think there's a lot to be said about how the essay changed the language with which fandom was discussed and the way in which slash was thought about, beyond just "this is an essay which references Wave Theory". --enchantedsleeper (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes Very good meta Mlemley (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Robin of Sherwood Fandom and Slash Fanworks

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on July 27, 2018. As of this writing the page has no content flags.

interesting article showing how TPTB can interfere in fandom and highlighting how views of slash and homosexuality have changed from the 1990s -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- I added to the intro to give it more context. MPH (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes I found this article rather fascinating. Mlemley (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes: Very interesting article! I also added a bit to the intro, plus some wikilinks and a few cross-links to other articles about TPTB intervening in fandom. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Killing Time (Star Trek tie-in novel)

Nominated by MPH (talk) on July 28, 2018. As of this writing the page has no content flags. A fascinating subject with lots of meaty comments.

Yes: Very comprehensive and interesting -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes! This was really fascinating. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Unenthusiastic yes While the article is incredibly comprehensive and very well-structured, we do a LOT of Star Trek-oriented Featured Articles. I understand that the Star Trek fandom has been around for quite some time, and that it set a lot of Fannish cultural norms and practices, it's important to also make sure we're covering a very diverse array of fandoms. Mlemley (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

What Shipping Richonne Taught Me About Racism

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on August 11, 2018. As of this writing the page has no content flags (and it's not about Star Trek).

Yes from me - I gave some of the fan comments individual references and also added some related reading links. I think this will be an interesting page to feature. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Constructed Reality

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on August 13, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

A wonderfully detailed page about vidding - quite timely as well given the last Vividcon just took place. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)