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)

Please try not to truncate this - if the page doesn't fulfil one or more of the criteria listed above, consider whether this can be addressed before nominating the page.

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 Policy & Admin.

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 Policy & Admin and gardeners monitor this page and will archive or move nominations to the list of upcoming nominations as needed.

Past Nominations

Current Nominations

No Homo (Teen Wolf fic)

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 19, 2021. As of this writing, it has a good intro with no content flags.

Somewhat famous fic in Teen Wolf fandom, that was later orphaned by the author -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe: The page does tick the main boxes but it feels like there could be more to it. Aside from the introduction, the only content is a selection of quotes from fans and a list of fanworks it inspired - which makes the page feel insubstantial. Could there be more info added about the fic's creation, for example how it came to be inspired by a Craigslist ad, or any other details shared by the author? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I can try and find something about the history, but it might be difficult, because the author deleted all their fandom accounts when they decided to quit fandom and become a professional author -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Very belatedly updating this to a Yes vote - this page feels more rounded now with additional fan comments and fanwork examples, and I've also added some info on why the fic was orphaned when all the author's other works were deleted, which I think is interesting. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Maybe: it feels like the second paragraph of the intro could be moved to a new section called "the fic" or something and expanded on, maybe by moving the FFA discussion up and combining the two for a broader picture of the fic itself? and then something about the popularity, since i was in teen wolf fandom and i'd never heard of this fic until i saw this page. it seems to have dropped considerably in popularity but is still quite popular. - flyingthesky (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe:' Article feels a bit too superficial/short for me. Although it would be nice to see something from the Teen Wolf fandom featuere. --14:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe: I'm not bothered by it being short, though I do agree that some parts of this article could be polished, changed around, or expanded. Otherwise I agree with Enchantedsleeper that the small selection of fanworks and responses do make it seem insubstantial even though the article says it was a fan fav in the fandom. Patchlamb (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I have added more fanart examples -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Brontë Fandom

Nominated by Erimia on May 13, 2021. As of this writing, it has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

An interesting article with a lot of fascinating historical information about an old and unusual fandom, as well as about the fannish activity of the authors themselves. -- Erimia (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Almost there: a couple of things would probably need changing for me, one I think we need to remove Charlotte Bronte quote at the top of the page, and two I think the intro needs to be tightened up slightly. Usually I complain about intros being too short, but this one seems to have information that feels like it is not summarizing the article, but that maybe should be it's own section in the body of the article, like the fact that the Bronte sisters were fannish themselves. Plus there also seems to be quite a lot of red links on the page -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Almost: Yes I also think the intro should be refocused on the fandom, rather than the sister as fans in their own right. That info is interesting but belongs in a different section. I also think it could do with an update as the intro implies the bicentennial is in a future 2016.
You can take or leave my next suggestion; I'm just thinking out loud - with the Bronte sisters books out of copyright, is there discussions of pro fiction and its place within Bronte fandom which could be added to the page?? I'm thinking in particular of Wild Sargasso Sea, the Jane Eyre prequel with alt POV that was published in 1969, that is often cited by aca-fans. But I know there are lots of more recent examples. I'm just not sure if they relate to or are discussed by Bronte fandom... --Auntags (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes: Cool article. I didn't knew Fanlore had an article about it. I see people posting on tumblr a lot about Brontë works and adapted movies and it a bit of fresh air that showcases how broad fandom can be. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Not yet: It's very interesting, but it feels like two separate articles have been smooshed together. I suggest splitting it into a Person page (containing the Brontës' fannish creations, and most of their biographical info) and a Fandom page (focussed on the fandom around their works). I'd love to have one of those pages as a Featured Article! --Bikedancelaugheat (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Rainbow Bondage Bear

Nominated by StringQuartets&ChiaPets on May 14, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I think it's really interesting, its an event in which tinhatting might be true which is cool, and covers both the events and the fandom theory around it quite well.StringQuartets&ChiaPets (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Although, I don't completely understand why the fans think the bear is related to the pairing Larry in particular -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe it's mainly because on a couple of occasions the bears' clothing imitated what Larry had done the day before, they had a picture of a man named Larry signed "love larry," a color scheme thing, reflections of one of the members that comprises the ship taking a picture of the bears, members of the band looking directly at the members of the ship when asked about the bears, and the changing of profile pics on the ship members' birthdays. I can try to make that clearer in the theories section. StringQuartets&ChiaPets (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
No: I think this article needs more PPOV. The majority of content on this page appears to support only one fan theory; I think the perspectives of other fans should be better represented. Also, this is a minor quibble, but most of the links seem to be unarchived external links rather than citations or source-formatted links. -- Chanterelle (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I can try to find more theories but from what I can find it tends to be either the theory presented or that the bears are just there for fun and there isn't much beyond that. I appreciate the input and I'll see if I can fix it. StringQuartets&ChiaPets (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes: because is so bizarre and weird. The 1D fandom seems very strange *lol* --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes: This is a very informative page and the topic is so wild and yet so very fannish, it was a fascinating read. -- Erimia (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
No: This page is too one-sided and many of the edits from other POVs are quickly removed, which makes me concerned that its use as a featured article would push one group's agenda. Other 1D fans' POVs, especially those of anti-Larries, need to be better represented in the article. For example, the "alternate theory" of it just being a crew member placing the bears there for fun has been confirmed by said crew member, and that fact should be leveraged above referring to it as an "alternate theory." Or else, a better array of nonbelievers' responses to why they find the RBB Theory problematic could be represented.Ulanbataar (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Ulanbataar, I'm so glad you're willing to tell me about your concerns regarding agendas in the 1D fandom. I was under the impression, from the research I did for the page, that there were no alternate theories? They just didn't believe that the bears represented the theory covered on the page? I've never come across any alternate theories about it. If you have any idea where to look for those or where to find the crew member's confirmation that they were responsible I would appreciate it immensely. I'll try to add the stuff you pointed out! Thanks for your help! --StringQuartets&ChiaPets (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I cannot find any confirmation regarding any crew members involvement no matter where I look. There is a video with RBB behind the crew member for a brief moment. Is that the one you are talking about? I tried but I couldn't find any sort of confirmation, only denials. Thank you for your suggestion! --StringQuartets&ChiaPets (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes: This is really interesting and seems to be comprhensive! --Coconutcream99 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Littlest Pet Shop (YouTube)

Nominated by Patchlamb on May 23, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Though it's a bit of a microfandom, so sort of small and short, I think a toy franchise having a fandom like how Littlest Pet Shop does is really unique and could make for an interesting featured article.

Yes It would be interesting to see there was any discourse about posting videos or shipping or that sort of thing (which I didn't see on the page) but I think it's fun to see a community that seems so entrenched on a single site. It would also be cool if there were fannish comments, such as role-playing, in the comment section which I believe isn't uncommon in youtube based fandoms. --StringQuartets&ChiaPets (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I think the intro needs to be slightly reworded or reworked, it wasn't until I read the fandom section that I understood truly what the article was about -- Kingstoken (talk)
I moved some info on what the fandom is from the fandom section to the intro to hopefully help, as I wasn't sure how else to describe it. If it still seems the intro is confusing, let me know which parts and I'll try and re-word it some more. Patchlamb (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Almost there - In the intro, the term "kidcore" isn't explained or linked to an explanation, and it's confusing why full-motion videos would be referred to as "stop-motion". — PCCB (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Five Things

Nominated by memorizingthedigitsofpi on June 17, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. This was mentioned in a discussion about short fics on tumblr, and some users were unaware of it while others mentioned that they hadn't seen these types of fics in a long time. I'd love to spread awareness of this fic style and maybe try to help spawn a resurgence. :)

Almost: The intro seems rather scant, I think it needs to be filled out a little more. Also, for a trope that had cross fandom appeal the example fanwork section is very small. However, with a little work it could probably make a good featured article -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I liked it and it seems concise and to the point.--Coconutcream99 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Maybe: I agree with Kingstoken that there is not much to the intro, though I'm really not sure what else could be added to it. The collection of example fics feels a little random - are these notable works or just examples that editors happened to add? If there was a way to collect together some early examples, followed by some interesting subversions of the form (or early examples of new "types", like Five Times instead of Five Things) I think that would add some really interesting depth to the page.
I've also noticed the same thing that pi noted in the nomination, namely that these types of fics aren't as prevalent as they used to be - could that be reflected in the page somehow? I will try and hunt down some fan comments that might have observations on this. It would be interesting to see if there is any meta on these fics as well. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Racefail '09

Nominated by memorizingthedigitsofpi on June 27, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I was looking at the page prior to making a graphic for it and I was shocked that it doesn't appear to have been featured already. Excellent sourcing and commentary and always a relevant topic for fandom.

So close: The only issue I can see with this page is that there's a lot of citation needed flags. These would need to be resolved before the page is featured. I'll see if I can dig some references up!--Auntags (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe: Racefail was nominated previously in 2019, check Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations/Archive (2019), and I'm not sure all the issues have been addressed since then -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Good catch!! I'll summarize the points raised from previous nom here so editors can be aware:
  1. Citations needed, and citation needed flags were added during previous nomination in 2018
  2. In the How it began section, the intro may need a rewrite
  3. It is a sensitive topic which may upset people (IMO I do think this is more of an issue for Fanlore's social media when they're promoting the featured article - but we may want to add more detail to the intro to forewarn folks) --Auntags (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
✪ 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 20212020201920182017
Featured Article Nominations 20212020201920182017