Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Nomination Criteria

When thinking of pages to nominate, try to focus on pages of interest that are well-developed (though not necessarily "finished" or perfect) and will spark interest in visitors and would-be editors.

A Featured Article nomination should fit the following minimum criteria:

  • The article should be thorough and have a solid amount of information about the topic.
  • It should follow Fanlore policies.
  • It should have a good first (or first two) paragraph(s) introducing the topic well. (These are used to spotlight the article on the main page.)
  • The article should not be flagged with Template:Stub, Template:ExpandArticle, or have headers with no content in them.
  • The page should be up to date, or as up to date as it can reasonably be.
  • It should not have been previously featured on the Fanlore main page.

For more detailed criteria, refer to Featured Article Nomination Requirements.

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 is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. 

(Add other comments here)

Voting on a Nomination

Check out the sections below and add your approval, rejection or other comments. Make sure to bold the main word(s) in your vote: 'yes,' 'no,' 'hesitant yes,' and so on.

If you have reservations about the quality of a nominated article, explain your concerns as specifically as possible, with tangible suggestions, so others will be able to address your points. We encourage editors to follow up on their own suggestions, but improving a nominated article is not the sole responsibility of the original nominator or commenter. All editors are welcome to fix problems that have been flagged up and say the issue has been resolved.

An article needs at least four affirmative votes to successfully qualify as a Featured Article. A user voting 'hesitant yes' (or 'nearly', etc.) should clearly outline the edits needed to turn their vote into a full yes. A hesitant vote can be counted as an affirmative once these suggestions have been addressed.

If an article acquires three or more negative votes with no votes in favour, it may be disqualified before the three month voting period has ended. Nominees with split votes or active conversation will remain active at the discretion of Fanlore staff.

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

Some example votes with comments:

* '''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

Misogyny in Fandom

Nominated by SecurityBreach on November 9, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Yes: Great article. I added a few internal links :-) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Very good article. I fell down the rabbit hole with this one, following more internal links than I'd meant to.--Auntags (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk)
No: Personally, I still have a really hard time processing this page. Those concerns are detailed in Talk:Misogyny_in_Fandom#Reorganizing_Page and solutions have been discussed but not implemented. —caes (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I hesitate because it feels like the article just scratches the surface of the issue, and it seems like it is trying to cover too much, although with an overview article like this it is hard to cover such a massive topic. I will say I do think some of these topics and bullet points should have articles of their own, like I know there has been some discussion this past year about how badly teenage girls were treated, back in the day, because they dared to like Twilight, most notably the video essay by Lindsay Ellis, and that is just one example -- Kingstoken (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Gianna (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nine Worlds Geekfest

Nominated by Cancennau on 16th December. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Nine Worlds looks to be dying off since they haven't found a new director, so being a featured article might encourage others to share their memories of the con.
Hesitant Yes: It would be nice to have a little bit more history on how convention started, the article mentions a kickstarter page, but not much else. It would be nice to know more about the original founders, who's idea the convention was, how did the planning and kickstarter come about -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I added more about the early history of the con, but it would be good to have more info/quotes about fans' and attendees' experiences and their reactions to the con's closure. —caes (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I leaned towards voting 'hesitant yes' too because I also feel the article needs more information on the early history of the con. I did some research online and it's not that easy to find out about although the con's site is still online. However, one of the Nomination Criteria is 'pages of interest that are well-developed (though not necessarily "finished" or perfect) and will spark interest in visitors and would-be editors'. I think this could work in this case. The last Geekfest was in 2018 and there must be plenty of people around who visited the con or were involved in organising it. So I agree with Cancennau that 'being a featured article might encourage others to share their memories of the con'.
I added a quote from 2014 to the section 'Commitment to Diversity and Safety'. SecurityBreach (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I think it a good article that deserves to be highlighted - even if it is not yet perfect. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: somefangirl (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Gianna (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Nominated by caes on February 11, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Yes: Interesting and thorough article. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes!: Lots of fun links in this one. somefangirl (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: i kind of wish there were a section explaining the explicit definition of sockpuppet versus just a second account/what a sockpuppet is and isn't, especially now with so many younger fans just having alternate accounts to write porn (i see this a lot in the A/B/O tag for instance) or not be horny on main and the use of pseuds on AO3. the rest of the page is good, i just feel like it's mostly good for a specific era of fan and maybe we should make it a little more inclusive before featuring it? - flyingthesky (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree, it's a good page but it feels out of date. "Socking up" is popular in exchange fandom for a bunch of different reasons. I'll try to add some stuff about that. - Hoopla (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe: I agree with flyingthesky, this feels a little outdated, maybe a section could be added about how socks are not generally currently used for the same reasons they originally -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Huddling for Warmth

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 14, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes: MPH (talk)

Minotaur

Nominated by Somefangirl on Feburary 16th, 2020. As of this writing, this page has a good intro, a nice series of comments from fans, and has no content flags.

Yes: I was totally going to nominate this page myself! *high-fives Somefangirl* Though we've never featured a page about a fan before - and I think it's fine to be cautious in doing so - I think certain fan pages are well worth featuring, and I don't see any negative backlash coming from this one (also, the fan in question is sadly no longer with us). I read this page with great interest and I think it would be a lovely feature as this fan was clearly beloved, well-known and would bring back a lot of positive memories for people. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Your Vagina is a Bigot; My Vagina is a Saint

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on February 23, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

A very well filled-out page about a well-known, if not infamous piece of meta about some hot button issues in fandom including racism and sexism. There's lots of detail on the debate, different reactions and comments that sprang from it.
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes SecurityBreach (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes --Auntags (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Costumes Are Not Consent

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 24, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags.


✪ This article is part of Fanlore Featured Articles. You can find out more about these below.
How To & About About Featured ArticlesHow to Nominate
Past Featured Articles 2020201920182017
Featured Article Nominations 2020201920182017