Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to 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

Elf AU

Nominated by MPH on June 6, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Maybe: I think the intro needs some work, and maybe some more fan comments, and is this a trope that is still popular? Or is it more of a thing of the past? -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Kingstoken, this is next up as I’m trying to work on Featured Noms, and although I will keep my eye out for other fan comments, it occurs to me that this page has a lot of example fanworks - fic and art - and discussion of them, which kind of feels the same to me as more fan comments. Do you think the number of examples on the page counterbalances the few number of comments? Joanna R (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I think this is a very good article which deserves it's place as an Featured Article. However, I agree with Kingstoken: in my opinion, the intro needs some work, too. Especially the first sentence. SecurityBreach (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I added to the intro but I think this page still needs more fan comments. From a quick look at Ao3, I also wonder if the Elf AU tag is been used to tag AU stories about canon elves? This might be a recent development or a not very common interpretation of this trope, but it might be worth a mention --auntags 18:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
auntags, I changed the AO3 link to the AU - Elf tag which has 212 uses, up considerably from works tagged specifically “Elf AU” which is only 54 (as of today’s date), so that’s one thing. It seems like it’s pretty scattered across a lot of fandoms, because even the most (the K-pop group BTS) only lists 15 works. Meanwhile, the LOTR fandom which has canonical elves only has 9, so it doesn’t seem like it’s a common interpretation of the trope - i.e. it may even be people mis-tagging the works (if you’re writing about canonical elves, an Elf AU isn’t an AU the way it would be for humans, but I can imagine that logical distinction may be tricky for some). I can keep looking through the tag, but canonical elves using that tag doesn’t seem too significant… I’ll keep reviewing the article, but wanted to comment on my findings so far. Joanna R (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Joanna R, that's really interesting, thanks for doing the research! (I do want to point out, that even in canons with elves, you could still have an "Elf AU" story in which a character who canonically isn't an elf, is in your AU. I don't know if stories like this exist though -- wait, maybe i"ve seen some in Tolkien fandom?? Will look into it myself). Anyways, it's going to be hard to get a diachronic picture of the usage over time from AO3, because it sounds like the heyday of these elf AUs (or at least complaining about them) was 80s through early 00s media fandom. Still, I think it *would* be worth discussing findings like this in the article, in some capacity. -- Quaelegit (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Quae I do think that’s how a couple of the folks tagging Elf AU in the LOTR fandom meant it, i.e. there were characters who are not canonically elves that are elves in their story. It’s an example of me either mis-reading/remembering or the term being a little fuzzy anyway, because what I thought it meant was an AU in which elves exist at all, from a canon where they don’t. (I.e. that exactly who is an elf or not wasn’t the same thing.) But :snaps up fan: I really don’t know. ;) Joanna R (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
These are definitely good points, and I'd to see more exploration of both of these in the article. I think we should move discussion over to the article's talk section, if it's okay i'm gonna quote our conversation over there as well. -- Quaelegit (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Neutral/Vote pending - I'm not voting quite yet, but I do want to give a heads-up that I've reworked the lead section for the article, since that seems to be a common factor for the hesitant yes/maybe votes. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Not Yet: the lede looks great to me now (thanks Pinky G Rocket and anyone else who's added to it in the past few months!) However, I have qualms about the rest of the article:
  • Move those left-aligned photos: I don't like this "photos on the left, infobox on the right, main body text in a narrow column in the middle" page layout. Maybe it's just my computer, but it doesn't look great. I know we want to keep them near the top of the article for spotlighting purposes, but can we move those photos...somewhere else? Would it be okay to put a horizontal gallery right below the lede?
  • Fan comments: I don't really see what most of these have to do with the article subject, tbh. The third one (from 2007), sure, but the first two seem to be about some "theory of slash fiction" and a complaint about AUs in general.
  • Both the "Other Epic Elf AUs" and "Sample Fiction" secton seem to be listing fanfic example -- perhaps they should be combined? I'd also like to do some some minor copyediting of the discussion in those sections, hopefully I can do that in a few days.
  • And once again I want to clean up the references, also something I'll try to take care of myself soon.
  • Suggestion to add: it seems like a lot of the fan comments and meta are very negative on elf AUs. If possible, I would like to see some discussion in the article synthesizing/summing up why people tend to dislike them so much, and if possible some viewpoints from the other side, of why people keep writing them. -- Quaelegit (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Not Yet: It feels somewhat incomplete, esepcially the lack of fan comments (there is a huge gap) seems odd. Maybe The new Tolkien show will breathe some more life in this? -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response, but the huge gap in time is an unfortunate but hard to avoid side effect of our realms of expertise here at fanlore -- we have a bunch of info about zine fandom from the '80s and '90s (b/c incredible editors have done A COLOSSAL AMOUNT OF WORK gathering that info over the last decade), and we can use tumblr and other social media sites (and to a certain extent, AO3 tags) to see what people have been creating and talking about in the last few years, up to maybe a decade. But that gap of years in between, when people were on older websites that us modern editors don't know about or have access to, we just don't know how to find out what was happening! Or at least, this is a pattern I've noticed in my own wiki contributions. I would definitely welcome a discussion of how we can improve our coverage of that time period (both "we as a community" and suggestions for me, specifically). -- Quaelegit (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Things with Beards

Nominated by Pinky G Rocket on June 21, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Not Yet Right now the page needs a "Needs More Fandom" flag and doesn't look appropriate for Fanlore. If I understand this correctly, "Things with Beards" was professionally published--how is this possible if it was fanfiction? The page does not address copyright issues or whether fandom debated whether or not it counted as fic. All the quotes from readers appear to be SF readers in SF publications. It has its own entry in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, where it is described as a short story and not fanfic. The way the article is framed makes it sound like it wasn't fanfic, which means the template is incorrect. The way the Fanlore page is written now, it looks like a science fiction story that received some science fiction awards, and it's not clear what the connection to fandom is or why it should be on Fanlore at all. That is, maybe it does belong on Fanlore, but currently the page does not explain why.--aethel (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a transformative work based off The Thing (1982), without authorization or approval from anyone that worked on the film. In addition, it has been self-described by the author as fanfic.
Essentially a fanfic sequel to John Carpenter’s The Thing, my story follows MacReady after the events of the movie, returned to his life with his memory full of weird holes.

It's also not the first time that transformative work has been published in Clarkesworld. I'll add the author's description of it being fanfiction, but given that is a transformative work, I do believe it is suited for Fanlore.
I can see that you're drawing a line in the sand between this being a professional work and a piece of fanfiction, but I'm not really sure where or how you're drawing that line.
Copyright issues and if it counts as fic or is not really something I found while doing research for the article. The most I found on that front was a quote from a review that decried derivative work being nominated for professional writing awards.
And by the way, isn’t that stealing? Shouldn’t the Nebula nominees be original works, with original characters and original ideas?

In general, The Thing fandom is a small fandom that does not engage heavily with fanworks in the same way that other modern-day fandoms do, so I think trying to find discussions on copyright issues and "is this fic" is trying to chase down something that doesn't really exist. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@Aethel I would dispute that "it's not clear what the connection to fandom is", because to me this is clearly the work of a fan and arises from the fandom surrounding the film. And so I wonder if the venue where it was published necessarily takes away from that? I am assuming the argument that it doesn't qualify as fanfiction is that fanfiction is inherently amateur (which our page on fanfiction alludes to although it's not strictly stated as part of the definition, but one line refers to "true" fanfiction -- or at least, identifiable amateur stories by fans using copyrightable creative works so I'll assume that's our working definition of a fanfic). But it does still arise from fandom and is therefore at least fannish. Perhaps we could debate about the suitability of the Fanfiction infobox for the page, but that doesn't mean that the subject itself isn't suitable for Fanlore at all.
This isn't just a sci-fi story, because it's a sci-fi story that uses the characters, concept and IP of The Thing (and doesn't even attempt to disguise that fact, like other works that file off the serial numbers). So I don't think it's right to regard it as if a Fanlore page was made for a sci-fi story with no discernible link to fandom; the link is there. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
For me the main issue is that the page doesn't read like a page about a fanfic. A fanfic that got published professionally is noteworthy, but the reception section just says it was controversial for being gay. I think the page itself needs to state how unusual this is and why/how it got published. Clarkesworld making a habit of publishing fanfic would be an interesting addition to the page. If no one bat an eye at this being published, then that is itself noteworthy. If The Thing fans don't really write/share fanfic as a hobby, but instead publish it professionally, then that is something that can be explained on the page itself. If The Thing fans tend to be homophobic men, demographic differences could be highlighted more explicitly as well.
Where I draw the line between fanfiction and not fanfiction is who is reading it/how it was received/what is the context of the work. Do people who read fanfic read this story? Do people who read this story think of it as fanfic? Being published for money doesn't mean it can't be fanfic, but professional publications are usually at a remove from fan community activity, so if it's published in a professional venue, then it's less likely to be a fandom document/part of a fan community's history. That is, if Fanlore is documenting fandom history, then we cover fanfiction because it is a record produced by fan communities and is evidence of the communities' activities.
I reread the page, and I think it'll be fine with more context added, but I don't want to see a situation where Fanlore starts creating pages for every published Sherlock Holmes and Jane Austen pastiche with New York Times book review quotes for the fan reaction section. That's what I was worried about.--aethel (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Not Yet: This feels like a wikipedia page since it still lacks the "Fannish" aspect IMO. Also I didn't notice from the first paragraph that it's noteworthy because it is professional work and was considered controversial, so if that could be incorporated (also the "controversary" isn't mentioned/ I like how that seems to be euphemicals called "social themes", maybe that was the way to do this when it was released?) Maybe worth looking into that more to flash the article out? -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
When User:Pinky G Rocket has time to work on this again, perhaps she can clarify, but that was not my impression of why this fic is noteworthy. I thought it was noteworthy for the controversy (mentioned in the second paragraph of the lede) and generally being a widely-read story with much discussion (probably a lot of people were reading it if it was nominated for three awards!). -- Quaelegit (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I'm confused at the voters saying this lacks a fannish aspect -- the "reception" section has a good variety of quotes from fan reviews. As far as I checked (most of them), these are all from peoples' personal blogs, not paid industry reviews. I think it would be great to feature this as a reminder that transformative media, and fannish engagement with transformative media, happens outside of Tumblr, AO3, and Livejournal. -- Quaelegit (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I am also confused by those saying this lacks a fannish aspect, though maybe those parts of the page have been elaborated on since this article was initially elected. I think Things With Beards would be a really interesting choice for Featured Article, because and not in spite of its publication status, even if it doesn't qualify as traditional fanfiction. It is still a fanwork, has fan responses cited on the page, and is overall an interesting read. There are some parts of the article that have odd wording, but nothing that makes it impossible to understand the article. --Travvymybeloved (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Photo Reference

Nominated by Kingstoken on September 4, 2022. As of this writing, the page has no content flags.

I thought this one might be an interesting one to feature, it talks about the artist process and how some non-artists misinterpret it. plus it has lots of great examples.
Not yet. Pinky G Rocket (talk)
  • There needs to be clarification between using photos to reference anatomy/design, basing a piece's composition/layout/etc. off a photo, photobashing, and direct tracing. All of these concepts are mixed together in the article.
  • I like to see professionals' take on the issue; since many professional comic artists, animators, illustrators, etc. also create fanart, I'd imagine many have things to say.
  • Some sections of the article could use more contextual information, rather than just quotes. The quotes are also long and run into "wall-of-text" issues. Trimming down quotes and adding some information from quotes into contextual paragraphs would make the article easier to read.
  • The examples gallery is long and rather unwieldy; I think examples can be trimmed down, or relevant images can be put together into composite images.
  • There is only one link in the 'further reading' section, and the live link contains malware/adware (!)
Yes Interesting article, I like that there large and varied selection of examples. As for the link containing malware. How do we want to handle this? This may happen after domains are abandoned. The archived version works, should we replace the link to avoid people accidently infecting their systems? --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen that done on other fanlore pages and I think it's the right course of action. In fact i'll go ahead and replace it right now, w/ a note that we're linking to an archived backup. -- Quaelegit (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Not yet. I agree this would be a great topic to feature, but I don't think the article passes muster quite yet. The lede definitely needs work, right now that opening paragraph makes me think "we do we have a fanlore article instead of just linking to wikipedia?" Obviously the the content of the article shows that we have a lot of fan-centric material and history to discuss that makes this a feature-worthy article for fanlore, but the lede needs to reflect that!
Also, I'm not super happy with the section titles. Some of them are good, but some of them are kind of vague and confusing. I'm sorry I can't offer more concrete criticism (if I could, i would probably try to fix the article myself) but I think perhaps some re-organization is in order. I'll keep thinking on it and try to reply here (or maybe on the talk page) if I figure out anything more helpful to say.
Finally, the references have some formatting issues, but I'll try to clean those up myself tonight. -- Quaelegit (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


Nominated by Quaelegit on October 6 2022. Okay gonna try throwing my hat into this nomination business and say this one's looking pretty comprehensive! No content flags. TBH I'm surprised it hasn't been nominated before... unless it's Too Soon? (Also maybe we've featured too many SPN articles recently?)

Maybe: I don't know, I was in SPN fandom at the time and this period was insane, I really feel like this article doesn't cover everything, but then again maybe it just isn't possible to cover everything -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Not Yet: I know Finale section is a brain dump, because I dumped most of it there. That section could be fleshed out, maybe with examples, citations or fan comments. Also the metafandom link goes to a page about a newsletter, so I think we need to define metafandom and expand that section. It's a page worthy of a feature, but it needs a bit more work before its ready. --Auntags (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I've disambiguated the LJ Comm from the glossary term and expanded on the concept on the latter page. I can't really help cover more or expand on what's there because I was very much in that metafandom penumbra. I guess I could try to track down the tumblr posts being alluded to in the bullet points of the Finale section? -- Quaelegit (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much, I actually didn't know the definition of meta fandom before this! The Finale section is on top of the SPN S16 Episode section with all the bullet points. I'll try to add some reactions and citations there --Auntags (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Maybe Would it possible to get some fan comments/reaction from the finale for the FInale Section on this? Looks like the fans we really angry at TPTB back at the time, not only the Destiel shippers... -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Sex Pollen

Nominated by Kingstoken on November 13, 2022. As of this writing, the page has no content flags. Might be an interesting trope to feature.

Not yet: There's some really unspecific wording on this page, e.g. DC having a lot of sex-pollen " thanks in part to the canonical sex-pollen, but also because it's just that kind of fandom." -- what is "just that kind of fandom"? On fanlore in generally I usually try to roll with this kind of phrasing, but for a Featured Article I'd like to see more precise and justified discussion.
In fact, that whole section kind of feels like unjustified speculation to me. I don't really have evidence either way (I don't read sex pollen fics) so maybe I'm being too uncharitable, but I find myself wondering "do these fandoms actually have an unusual amount of this trope, or are these the fandoms that the author(s) of the article happen to read in?" Frankly, I find myself wondering that a lot on Fanlore trope articles, but since this article is being nominated for Featuring I'm asking it here, lol. -- Quaelegit (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I can confirm that DC and MCU fandoms have a lot of sex pollen, compared to other fandoms I read in, but its less popular/common in DC in recent years. But that doesn't really address the issue you raised. I think you're wondering if Example Fandoms is a useful section on trope pages, or is it a list of fandoms that's influenced primarily by who is writing the page? --Auntags (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's a *problem* to have a section like this, but I think it's often redundant with "Example Fanworks" (which is a much more standard section across the wiki). In this case, it's not exactly redundant because it has further info about the source of the popularity within each fandom, and sometimes trends specific to that fandom. Actually, what might make me feel better, is to re-title that section something like "Trends within specific fandoms" -- or maybe someone can come up with something more concise? But basically framing it as "here's some examples", less so than "these are the most prominent/imporant examples", which feels like it needs more justification to me. -- Quaelegit (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The Celestial Toybox

Nominated by Kingstoken on November 14, 2022. As of this writing, the page has no content flags. Thought this one might be a fun one to feature, it has such a wide variety of fandoms in it.

Yes*: asterisk is because I noticed some minor formatting issues (mismatched brackets and similar) on my first read through, and I want to do a more thorough read-through when I'm less tired. This should all be quick to fix. But content-wise it seems quite comprehensive. Appreciate all of the images, quotes from the editors, and reader responses. -- Quaelegit (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Captain My Captain

Nominated by Kingstoken on November 14, 2022. As of this writing, the page has no content flags. This fic seems interesting, and I don't think we ever featured anything from The Lord of The Rings fandom.

Almost: agreed this sounds like an interesting article to feature! I'd like to rework the lede and add archived/backup links for all of the references but I'm too tired to do it right now, so I'm making a note in here for later (i should be able to get to it sometime this week, but if someone else has time/inclination, feel free to pre-empt me). The "History, Reception, and Awards" section alludes to popular headcanons that spread from this fic to the fandom more broadly -- I'd like to know what they were! I'd also like to see more examples in the "Inspired Fanworks" section -- the "History, Receptions, and Awards" section talks about several art pieces and recursive fics, we should track those down and add a few of them. -- Quaelegit (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2022 (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 202220212020201920182017
Featured Article Nominations 202220212020201920182017