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 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.

Past Nominations

Current Nominations

Sockpuppet

Nominated by caes on February 11, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Yes: Interesting and thorough article. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes!: Lots of fun links in this one. somefangirl (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: i kind of wish there were a section explaining the explicit definition of sockpuppet versus just a second account/what a sockpuppet is and isn't, especially now with so many younger fans just having alternate accounts to write porn (i see this a lot in the A/B/O tag for instance) or not be horny on main and the use of pseuds on AO3. the rest of the page is good, i just feel like it's mostly good for a specific era of fan and maybe we should make it a little more inclusive before featuring it? - flyingthesky (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree, it's a good page but it feels out of date. "Socking up" is popular in exchange fandom for a bunch of different reasons. I'll try to add some stuff about that. - Hoopla (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so the way that I see it is that the common usage of "sock" to just mean an alternate account isn't the same as "sockpuppet" (even though it originates from that usage) which has a more explicit implication of someone who created a duplicate account for trolling purposes. I mean, how many people would call their exchange fandom alt account (or porn account, or whatever) a "sockpuppet"? I think that "sock" should be regarded as a separate term with a different usage to "sockpuppet". -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
plenty of people? that's why i'm saying the page needs more distinct definition/history of the term. like yeah, i personally agree with your definition but that's not the only definition i've seen used (especially more recently) and a bunch of people use "sockpuppet" and "sock" interchangeably in fandom. it's also pretty common to call an account for posting memes to a meme community a "sockpuppet" in roleplay, which has no connotation of trolling. - flyingthesky (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know that, I've only ever seen "sock" used. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe: I agree with flyingthesky, this feels a little outdated, maybe a section could be added about how socks are not generally currently used for the same reasons they originally -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes from me. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes - I added some clarification that a sock is not just an alternate account, and added a few details to the "notorious sockpuppets" list. I wish we had a picture to add (screencap with IP #s?) but it's okay as it is. --Elf (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Recent edits have really cleared up the definition and the page avoids any confusion with other uses of the term--Auntags (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
My only remaining concern about this article (after everyone's feedback about it) is that the intro still focuses mostly on journal sites/fandom and on the "troll" definition of sockpuppet rather than modern uses of the term. I think it would be good to reword it a bit before we feature. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Costumes Are Not Consent

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 24, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags.

Hesitant Yes: Much like Sockpuppet, I feel like this page is fine, just mildly outdated. In more recent years, the movement has shifted from a focus just on sexual harassment (which don't get me wrong: HUGE problem at early 2000s anime conventions) to the fact that wearing a costume does not qualify as consent to have your picture taken because of a huge upsurge in creepshots taken of cosplayers. These buttons are becoming more common and there's a big discussion about taking photos of cosplayers. Generally speaking, as cosplay has gotten bigger and more elaborate, it's become more and more common for cosplayers to get literally ambushed by a mob for pictures and it's not like. On the one hand, it's flattering that someone wants to take your picture for most people. On the other hand, sometimes I have somewhere to be or something to do and I literally don't have time for photos and there's a weird sense of entitlement convention-goers have about their right to a cosplayer's time. - flyingthesky (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I also feel that the page could use a bit more (recent) content maybe? --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Not yet: The conversation has shifted to taking photos with cosplayers without asking them, as well as online, and the page doesn't mention it at all. So it doesn't meet the criteria of being up to date. --Roamingcataloger (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

TPTB's Involvement with Fandom

Nominated by WhatAreFrogs? on April 5th 24, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags.

Not yet: I think this has potential, but it needs some work. The intro was too short for a Featured Article; I've expanded it with some details about how fan interaction with TPTB has changed over time, but I think it could be improved. Some other issues that I noted - the page is heavily focused on the late 90s, early 00s era of fandom, but there's a lot more to be said about the social media era and how that has impacted things. The page mentions Sherlock and Supernatural, but there don't seem to be any examples more recent than the early 2010s.
I also think that the page structure could use some work; there is a whole section given over to Chelsea Quinn Yarbro, but no other sections dedicated to specific examples; some of the sections are just citing one fan's opinion. There's a section about "Visibility and the Internet Makes Everything More Complicated" way down at the bottom, which could probably be rolled into an overarching section about "Copyright". I would probably create some more general headings, rearrange the structure and perhaps flesh out the sections that are largely bullet-point lists. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Not Yet: I think it needs more work, the topic of social media and TBTB barely scratches the surface, and could probably be it's own article. It is such a broad topic that maybe it would be better to feature articles focusing on specific instances in individual fandoms -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The social media topic has been moved to TPTB and Social Media, so I don't think that missing content is an issue on this page anymore.--caes (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Not Yet: I think it needs a mention of the difference between show (or whatever) creator(s) vs actor involvement, and a mention of fanservice as a potential form of involvement. --Elf (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes. I think it would do well with more info, but overall I think the article was pretty detailed, I liked reading it, interesting stuff. --RubyPhoenix (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Whump

Nominated by Somefangirl on May 24, 2020. As of writing, this has a good intro and no content flags.

Not Yet The article currently has 2 content flags. I added some X-Files stuff but the Example Fanworks and Example Uses could be fleshed out more. The latter ones are also missing cites since they seem to be quotes?
I thought it'd be easy to find references for the example uses, but they appear nowhere on the internet other than this fanlore page... I think they should be removed (unless we can find citations) and we should look into finding some other examples of fannish use of this term. Or some fan opinion on whump appeal. I'll have a look for those --Auntags (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe: the content flags would definitely need to dealt with, so that means more fanwork examples. I'm also not a huge fan of the phrasing of the intro paragraph, it feels a little weird to lead in with the "character bashing", maybe fully explain the concept first than compare to the other concept. -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: changing vote to yes, because the intro has been rewritten, it flows and better explains the topic, plus it looks like a lot of fanwork examples have been added -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
hesitant Yes: I rewrote the intro and did what I could to address the content flags. I pulled a lot of whump fanwork examples from related pages. It could still use some more fanart examples and I'm not sure if the canon section is really showing relevant canon examples, or if its needed. Same with example uses. Personally, I'd remove both sections. But I think it is an interesting topic to feature. --Auntags (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I think it's a yes if someone adds a few more fanart examples. The intro re-write by Auntags fixed the biggest issue. -- Error cascade (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I added some fanart.MPH (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like a more fleshed out gallery now. :) On another subject, I know there's an examples needed flag on the usage section, but a couple of examples seems fine to me, since it's essentially just a glossary aide. -- Error cascade (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The Grandmother and The Demon

Nominated by Kingstoken on June 4, 2020. As of this writing, it has no content flags.

A piece of collaborative original fiction that went viral on tumblr on a few years back, thought it might be cool to feature something showing the collaborative nature of online platforms.
Not yet: I've seen this post in the "wild" and I'm very fond of it. But as a Fanlore page, there's very little to it besides a description of the story itself (and a piece of fanart). It's missing the fandom - are there any fan comments we can add? What about derivative fanworks or other pieces of fanart?
I found a repost of the story by eatbreathewrite that has some good comments on it and I'll add that to the page. I think there's more to this that we can add, but right now the page needs more to give a sense of the story's impact and its variations (for example, in this version the grandmother is called Ethel, so I think the story actually branched off in a couple of different directions). -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Not Yet: I agree that for such popular work (460,000+ notes!) the article could use more comments and reactions. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The Kirk Spock Erotic Paper Doll Set

Nominated by Error Cascade on June 7, 2020. As of writing, this page has a fairly good intro. I looked through the previous nominations and there seems to be very few (if any) pages related to fancrafts. Out of the fanwork pages in the crafts category, this is the most developed. If chosen, some sentences might need a quick edit for clarity, but there's no content flags.

Hesitent Yes: It is fun page (I can immagine some the reactions already;-) ). But I would love the see more comments by fans from the years? --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: However, I do agree with WhatAreFrogs? that more fan commentary or reaction would be nice -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree about comments, however, I've done a lot of searching over the years for fan comments, and there just aren't very many. MPH (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: This is a fun page (always good to see another appearance by various vulcan genitalia XD). As the page also has other examples of fan interaction with the dolls like uses of them "in the wild", I think a lack of fan comments is fine. This was after all the pre-internet era, so before we had endless textual commentary about everything preserved online xD --enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"touched" (multifandom zine)

Nominated by MPH on June 22, 2020. It was an early femslash, m/m, and gen letterzine. It was more overtly political and lesbian than usual for zines of that era. The publication was also known for being copylefted (free to copy) at a time when zine editors frequently inveighed against zine piracy.

Yes: I suspect we may get a few votes saying "more fan comments?" but I'm assuming that we would have more if we could. xD --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: At first I was worried it wouldn't be that engaging to someone who wasn't really into print zines, but I took a more thorough look and it looks fun and quirky. It also seems appropriate to feature a zine since fanlore is particularly strong with documenting them. :) -- Error cascade (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. It's a zine that was unusual in many ways and as such is worth of wider attention of fan history aficionados --Erimia (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes --Auntags (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

SurveyFail

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on July 7, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

A well-filled-out page about a notorious 2009 fandom wank incident.
Yes: I had never heard of this incident, and the article is very interesting -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Ditto to what Kingstoken said above. I do think we should try and make the further reading/meta section look a little neater, maybe by adding subheadings instead of just bold text for better navigation, but it's a yes either way. -- Error cascade (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2020 (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 2020201920182017
Featured Article Nominations 2020201920182017