Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations
- 1 Nomination Criteria
- 2 Adding a Nomination
- 3 Voting on a Nomination
- 4 Past Nominations
- 5 Current Nominations
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.
- Yes: That is very detailed article. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hesitant Yes: There is just something about the intro that I don't like, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is. The rest of the article is well filled out -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hesitant Yes: The history section is AMAZING and honestly a wonderful read, but the "Fandom" section is completely blank except for a link to a ship manifesto and a link to a gifset. I mean, the history section is so good I almost want to say we should consider just getting rid of the fandom header, but... it'd be weird to have a ship page that was really just a history section and fanwork examples, right? I think? So I don't know exactly what should go there, but maybe we can come up with something instead of just getting rid of it. Garak/Bashir (featured earlier in 2019) has a "Fan Perspectives" section, while Harry/Draco (featured earlier in 2017) has a section for common tropes and a section where the article discusses how fanfiction writers dealt with canon developments. Also, there's an 'examples wanted' flag on the page that I agree with... at the very least, all of the individual han/luke fics are from 2004 or earlier and it seems like we should have more recent things there too. - Hoopla (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Almost: I agree with Hoopla about the fandom section. I'd like to see tropes, fanon, trends, etc, before this is featured. —caes (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Nominated by Fairestcat on 6 October 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.
- I was looking at this for a future Fannish History Friday link, but it is in fact a really thorough and well-done page about a cool bit of fandom history that I think would make a great featured article.
- Almost: I think it will make a great Featured Article with a couple of small improvements. I've changed the online archive end date to 2010 because nothing has been archived since that date, and the page itself says that the archive "may have fallen into limbo" since then. However, the circuit dates are still listed as "1980s - present" which I doubt is still accurate, though I'm not sure how to gauge when "the circuit" might have ended.
- Maybe: I agree with enchantedsleeper, the intro needs to be improved, if it can be fleshed out a little more it would be a good featured article -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe: I agree that the intro is a bit wonky (I added a bit of context in form of wikilinks, but it still could use a little bit of tweaking?) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
Nominated by flyingthesky on 17 October 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. The Gundam franchise is currently celebrating its 40th anniversary so now is a great time to feature this article and maybe entice someone into making any of the like eighty things I redlinked? One can hope.
- Yes: A very extensive page. Would be great if the red links in the intro could be taken care of first but that isn't a showstopper for me... --WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
- Yes: The red links are a little irritating and unfortunately I know too little about the topic to help you out. But I think the article is well written and contains a lot of interesting stuff so I vote 'yes'. SecurityBreach (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Leaning towards no: I sense I'm going to be outvoted on this one, but I'm not convinced by this page because it seems to feature very little fannish content? The vast majority of the article is taken up by an exhaustive history of the Gundam franchise and while there are mentions here and there about fans' reactions to things, to me it doesn't read like a page about Gundam fandom, as it's more concerned with the releases of various different series and model kits - the primary focus is on the official canon, not on the fandom or fanworks.
- This wouldn't bother me so much if there were more to the page than just the history, but after that there's just one section on Japanese versus English fandom, and then external links. While I realise it's hard to do this on a page that is so general, I would like to see it have some content on fanworks and also fan communities.
- The red links don't bother me nearly as much as the lack of fannish content, although I might just go away and create a stub for Hello Kitty because I can xD --enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
Nominated by SecurityBreach on November 12, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.
- Yes: Always nice to see Beauty and Best articles nominated. Good article. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes: MPH (talk)
Nominated by Hoopla on Novemer 13, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.
- It's possible we might want to somehow include some information on how this character is viewed in Japan before we feature it, but I think that the coverage of the English fandom is interesting and afaik basically comprehensive. Plus: animanga page! Hoopla (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes: I remember reading this page a while back and it's really interesting. I did wonder about non-English fandom while reading the page but it doesn't read as if there are glaring gaps in the information. It might be nice to have a longer introduction, perhaps adding some of the positive fan views about Mineta as well. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes: I agree on the point about the Japanese fandom and I've added info about the popularity polls. —caes (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes: Just to feature something non-Western for a change (page is decent as well). Any ideas how we could get some view from the Japanese fandom? --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Nominated by SecurityBreach on November 20, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.
- I think the article documents an interesting discussion between fans on tumblr from a few years back and highlights some aspects of fandom on the website.
- Hesitant Yes: I wish the intro was bit more filled out -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes: Maybe the comments could be sorted into different topics, but it's not absolutely necessary. —caes (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Nominated by caes on November 29, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.
- It's a fun page about an interesting era in anime fandom, and it's about convention culture.
- Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Nominated by SecurityBreach on November 30, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.
- Tie-in is a glossary term and I'm really not sure if that category qualifies for a featured article. However, I feel that some of the points discussed (like, fanfiction vs professional novels) could be interesting to fans. SecurityBreach (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Nominated by Kingstoken on November 30, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.
Nominated by caes on December 1, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.
- Page about a more recent type of fanwork which was very influential, and very different from anything that's been featured before.