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

Slanted Fedora

Nominated by SecurityBreach on August 9, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Almost: the article seems comprehensive, but the the into is not very good for a featured article, it would need to be reworded or fleshed out a bit more, because currently is it just a couple of line and a quote that is dong most of the work. -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Maybe: There's a lot of potential for an interesting article here, but I think it needs more to it than just quotations. While quotes are fine and useful, this page is almost purely a series of quotations and I would personally find it a bit easier to read with some summaries and a bit of editorialising guiding me through them. What are these specific quotes intended to show? Some of the Con Report quotes are also extremely long and I think could benefit from some cherry-picking of relevant details about the con, rather than say, this one fan saying hello to their friend.
I'm also not really getting a sense of the big picture from this page. Was this a popular con? It seems like there were quite a few negative views, but the con ran for eight years? What exactly made the con distinctive? The quote in the intro gets at it a bit, but the Mission Statement section left me at sea because I can't actually tell what the con's mission is from the quotes (which are quite meandering). Not the fault of the page, of course, but again it seems like an area where some explanatory sentences would be helpful. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Almost; +1 to the arguments above. -Greedy dancer (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers

Nominated by PictoChatCyberBully on 20 August 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. This page took me on a journey.

Yes: I wish the intro was more fleshed out, but the article itself is very well done and seems very comprehensive -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
What I've noticed with Featured Article intros that seem lacking (which is also true of the Alice Jones nomination above) is that they tend to lack a summary of fannish interaction. There would definitely need to be more to the intro here in order for it to go on the front page, and what I would add is a few lines about the fandom and what makes it distinctive. There's definitely plenty of info on the page (more than I've had time to digest yet!) so a paragraph or two encapsulating that would round out the intro. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, exactly good intros are needed for the front page, but I do know it can be very hard to make a good intro for a character or pairing article -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Is there a reason the intro couldn't be "padded" with a short summary of the fandom happenings? -Greedy dancer (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Not at all. That's what I think it's missing; it just needs someone to add that summary --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Gave it my best shot! --Greedy dancer (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Hesitant yes: Having had a chance to closely read more of this very thorough article, I'm definitely impressed by its comprehensiveness, but I have concerns about PPOV. The article was almost entirely written by a single fan who is definitely a community insider, which is great in terms of first-hand knowledge, but gives every part of the article a distinct pro-"Rangerphiles" slant. For example the way that the article defends the conservative rules of the forum and its ban on discussing "homosexuality" and "trans-genderism" is very "insider" and lacks alternate perspectives; contrast this with the fact that the introduction used to mention the controversy up front before it was rewritten.
I think these things can be mitigated to an extent (e.g. reflecting alternate perspectives on the fandom in the intro, rephrasing some wording to improve PPOV, potentially finding fan comments reflecting on the fandom that do not come from Rangerphiles), but my concern is that due to the long length of the article it will take a lot of work to meaningfully shift its perspective towards reflecting more diverse viewpoints on the fandom. However it is very interesting and thorough and so I don't want to say we shouldn't feature it, but I wanted to flag my concerns. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Not Yet: After a closer look at the body of the article, I agree with Kingstoken's PPOV concerns about justification of conservative positions. I don't think the article should be featured until they've been addressed. --Greedy dancer (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

S.T.A.R.

Nominated by PictoChatCyberBully on 31 Oct 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags. — PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I feel like the sections could be renamed to be slightly more clear about what the section is and the first section expanded to a paragraph or two so the reader gets a better sense of the linked page. - flyingthesky (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Almost: I'm confused by the "Explosive Growth, Overreach, and Its Demise" section which, if I'm not mistaken, is pretty much just a redirect to a section lower down on the same page? --Greedy dancer (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Lover In Low Light

Nominated by OMAW on 28 November 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags. I know it's not ideal given we've recently had Clexa as a featured article, but it's a decent article I was able to find at such last minute for this week. I'll see if I can find anything else. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Star Trek: Tik Tok

Nominated by kingstoken on November 28, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags. This was a viral fan vid from 2010.

✪ 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