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

The Rape of Inara: On heroines, consent, and women’s sexuality

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

Came across this article and thought it might be a timely thing to feature, considering all the recent discourse around Joss Whedon -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Almost there: I like the article, but there's a few nitpicky things I think should change first. I think some of the quotes might be better formatted as NQuote if they're showing comment threads. Also, I've seen this essay shared as a resource fairly often. Might be nice to add a bit of info about impact aside from the LJ comments. Will try and look over it sometime soonish. -- Error cascade (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes: Looks good to me. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes -- MPH (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes --SecurityBreach (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes --Emma M (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes: I think the issues with the quotations and impact have been sufficiently addressed. I felt as though the intro needed more though as it has to stand on its own on the front page and previously did not contain anything about the essay itself, only the episode that prompted it. I have added a bit about what it covers and the ensuing discussion. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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)
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)

Written by the Victors (Stargate Atlantis podfic)

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on February 27, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

An ambitious (and acclaimed) podfic adaptation of a beloved SGA fanfic. There aren't many sections to the page, but I think it covers everything quite comprehensively. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes: Such an interesting read, I immediately went to check if the podfic was still available. Unfortunately not, but definitely worth a feature. --Auntags (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I think that the podfic link has now been repaired. Could someone check it? MPH (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
YES, it works! My thanks to the folks who fixed the link --Auntags (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes: Do we know who the artist for the cover art is? There doesn't appear to be any info on the file, but it would be nice to add credit to the caption, if possible -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Not Yet: Lim had extensive production notes about her process of creating the podfic (linked in the footnotes). Some of that should be added to the page. (I don't know who the cover artist is. It's not mentioned at the beginning of the podfic. I would have thought Cybel, because she made almost all the covers, but I can't find it in her Photostream of podbook covers. ETA: cover artist is lim. It says so on the page and here.) --Doro (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for finding the cover artist -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Seconding Not Yet: It's a cool article but I feel like there should be something of a history of the recording process/origin/something other than just a list of performers and (a really good) selection of reviews. -- Error cascade (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Edit: Changing vote to yes with the new additions. -- Error cascade (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Third Not Yet: Article feels a bit to sparse if the fic as that acclaimed. I would wish for some more background/history tidbids since the organizing back in 2007 must have been quite an effort. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I've gone in and added a Process section with details on the notes to voice actors and production notes, per the recommendations from Doro and Error cascade. However, as for adding details of the history and organisation of the project, I'm having a hard time with that part; I don't know where that organisation might have taken place, and most of the sources I might use to get a clue like the sga-podfic LJ comm or lim's LJ are offline and not archived. Any ideas? (I've already run a Google search of site:livejournal.com for "written by the victors podfic", but that just returns more recs of the story and podfic). --enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Update: MPH, who is a superstar, has added some great links and quotes to the page that have helped bring more of the 'making of' to life. She also reached out to Cesperanza about the original coordination of it, but Speranza has confirmed that most of that disappeared with Lim's LJ. :( However, I think the page is greatly improved - would any of our "Not yet"s (Doro, Error cascade, WhatAreFrogs?) like to take another look at the page and see if it addresses their concerns? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Scanlation Ethics

Nominated by Mozaikmage on March 13 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I just think it's interesting and detailed. --Mozaikmage (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes: I would like the intro to be a little more filled out, it seems a tad scanty for a featured article -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Almost There: The page feels a tad disorganized and like Kingstoken said, the intro is definitely lacking. I feel like the four sections under "Scanlation-hosting Sites" can be combined into a "Common Issues" header or something, since none of the sections is really long enough to be their own full section. - flyingthesky (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I have the same problems as Kingstoken here. I feel there is much more to this topic that is currently missoing. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Not Yet: I agree with most points mentioned above. I also took a look at the article's history and it seems the last edit was made on December 14, 2012, so I guess that some information is probably outdated and more recent events haven't been documented yet.
I would like to see more recent information on topics like hosting sites, poaching projects etc., and perhaps a few fannish voices included on this page. --SecurityBreach (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Nirvana (band)

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on March 14, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

I came across this page while poking through our bandom pages, and it struck me as a really detailed and comprehensive look at the fandom. There is a note from MPH on the Talk page saying that the page could use some organisation, and I'm not sure if that was already addressed, but I'm happy to rearrange sections if anyone has suggestions for improvements. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: There is a [citation needed] on the page down at the bottom and in general for such a prominent band I feel like there's a real lack of references, especially for a lot of the stuff in the "common tropes" section but other than that it's pretty interesting. - flyingthesky (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Good point about the references. I'll look for some more sources to add to the page. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: it is very well done, but I feel like it is missing information about the fandom in the 1990s itself, I remember being a teen in the early 1990s, and even though I personally wasn't a fan, I knew Nirvana was hugely popular, like I remember girls making their own t-shirts, or having a binders decorated with pictures of Kurt Cobain, etc, and this was in a rural area of Ontario, Canada. I know a lot of this is hard to track pre-world wide web, and maybe not possible to source, but I thought I should mention it. -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: For the same reasons as kingstoken mentioned. There isn't a fandom section, with an intro to the fandom. I also remember there been increased fan activity on the anniversary of Kurts death, but a lot of that was pre-internet with IRL friends. (I had a poster of Kurt over my bed during my teeny years) I do think the conspiracy theory section shouldn't make generalisations based on gender, and I'd be ok with seeing the citation needed bit removed.--Auntags (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: It looks good but the Citation needed flag needs to be resolved first and I feel the Courtney Love/Conspiracy theories (Fan theories?) section could be fleshed out a but? -WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:35, 21 March 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