Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations/Archive (2020)

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

About this page

This page lists Featured Article nominations that were posted on the Fanlore main page in 2020 or that were rejected during 2020 due to insufficient yes votes. For current nominations, visit Fanlore: Featured Article Nominations.

Approved nominations

doofenperry twitter au!!!

Nominated by caes on December 1, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Page about a more recent type of fanwork which was very influential, and very different from anything that's been featured before.
Yes SecurityBreach (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes! Emyn (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I had never heard of this but I love learning about it and it should 100% be a Featured Article. I added some more commentary from fans and rewrote the introduction in places to be a litle more accessible to outsiders. Also definitely went down a Twitter rabbit hole looking for more works it inspired (I've started a Talk page thread about that). -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 15:29, 05 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Tie-in

Nominated by SecurityBreach on November 30, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Tie-in is a glossary term and I'm really not sure if that category qualifies for a featured article. However, I feel that some of the points discussed (like, fanfiction vs professional novels) could be interesting to fans. SecurityBreach (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm I really like this page, but the fan comments on female authors in Star Trek tie-in novels feel out of place, and I think they really deserve their own page in the Star Trek Category. There's a few other fandoms where tie-novels played a huge role in fandom that probably deserve their own page too. I've put my specific ideas on the Talk:Tie-in page for discussion.--Auntags (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Following discussion on talkpage, I've moved the female Star Trek authors section and started a new section, Notable Fandoms and Authors. I'll be adding a Doctor Who tie-in novel page in the coming week, so hopefully that red link won't be there for long.--Auntags (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes - Forgot to change my vote following changes--Auntags (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Yescaes (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes - I think this looks good with the changes made by Auntags! I also added a bit more info to the introduction about their repuatation/significance in fandom. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

The Great Australian 1985 Radio Show Fiasco

Nominated by Kingstoken on January 08, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

I think it is an interesting perspective on things have somewhat changed in fandom, and how known slash is now
Yes --Auntags (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes --SecurityBreach (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Very interesting and a good pick for a Featured Article. I added some wikilinks and related pages in the "See Also" section. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

The Professionals Circuit

Nominated by Fairestcat on 6 October 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

I was looking at this for a future Fannish History Friday link, but it is in fact a really thorough and well-done page about a cool bit of fandom history that I think would make a great featured article.
Almost: I think it will make a great Featured Article with a couple of small improvements. I've changed the online archive end date to 2010 because nothing has been archived since that date, and the page itself says that the archive "may have fallen into limbo" since then. However, the circuit dates are still listed as "1980s - present" which I doubt is still accurate, though I'm not sure how to gauge when "the circuit" might have ended.
Secondly, the intro is currently very vague and doesn't do the content of the article justice, especially as it will be featured on the front page on its own. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Yes: After the edits made by MPH in November I think this article is now good to go - the intro reads well and it is a very interesting subject overall. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe: I agree with enchantedsleeper, the intro needs to be improved, if it can be fleshed out a little more it would be a good featured article -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Changing vote to Yes because of changes made to article -- 11:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe: I agree that the intro is a bit wonky (I added a bit of context in form of wikilinks, but it still could use a little bit of tweaking?) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
I did a bunch of work reorganizing the page, using different headers, and hopefully improving the intro. MPH (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
This is fantastic work, MPH - thank you! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes I struggled on my first reading of this page, but the changes MPH made are excellent and really help the flow of the page. Fascinating topic too! --Auntags (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

All this talk about unpopular writers reminds me of how tumblr fandom is really lonely.

Nominated by SecurityBreach on November 20, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

I think the article documents an interesting discussion between fans on tumblr from a few years back and highlights some aspects of fandom on the website.
Hesitant Yes: I wish the intro was bit more filled out -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
i added some context and streamlined the intro! - flyingthesky (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Yes after the changes made to the intro -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Maybe the comments could be sorted into different topics, but it's not absolutely necessary. —caes (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: i agree that potentially we could sort out the comments, but i'm not sure how and it's fine for featuring as is. - flyingthesky (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

The J2 Haiti Fic

Nominated by caes on December 16, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive.

There's one Expand flag for the "Tone" section, but I think that's already covered is the sections for discussions about racism and could be removed. —caes (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant yes. I'm not familiar enough with this specific controversy to know whether or not the tone section can be removed. If there was talk of tone policing, which it looks like there might have been since there was talk of derailing with the misogynistic comment discussion, then I think that's actually quite different from the discussion about racism and should probably be pulled out. The section about racism is about the fic itself. A section about tone would be about the commentary/controversy surrounding the fic. It's not really necessary, per se, but I'm wary about removing it if it was a significant part of the controversy. flyingthesky (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Yes after the edits made by enchantedsleeper! - flyingthesky (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I'm not sure the tone section even needs to be there, maybe it just be a note like "See Also Tone Argument" or something similar -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I've addressed this by rolling the Tone section into the Misogyny section, because as far as I can tell it did stem directly from fans using misogynistic slurs, the subsequent excessive focus on that rather than the fic's racism, and the comments about tone that resulted. I also added an additional quote to that section to flesh it out. I haven't been through everything - and it's difficult to know whether there was more, separate discussion that has been lost to journal deletions - but I feel like this does capture the essence of that discussion. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Because of the changes made by enchantedsleeper I'm going to change my vote to Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I think this is a comprehensive and thorough page about an important fandom incident/debate. I've renamed some of the sections to headers I think are a bit more representative of their content, and added some more quotations in places to represent additional perspectives. The only thing I think the page could still do with is more links in the "Meta/Further Reading" section - there was so much meta around this topic that it's weird we only have one link in that section. But I've run out of steam to add anything further to the page xD --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: That one is quite extensive and the tone issue has been resolved. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I feel the recent edits have fleshed out the page alot, with added opinions and nuance. Definitely a worthwhile featured article. --Auntags (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Poly

Nominated by Kingstoken on November 30, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Almost: I think this is a good article, but a couple of things could use work: a lot of the references date to 2010-2013 and it kind of shows, as the info is out of date in terms of the communities they refer to and the prevalence of certain ships within specific fandoms. Also, I would like a bit more fandom info up front in the intro, not just talking about what polyamory is but its significance to fandom and the attitudes of fans to poly ships. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Changing vote to Yes: The point about having more fandom info up front has been addressed nicely, and I'm satisfied that there's much more up-to-date info and references on the page now. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Not Yet: I think it's important to resolve the page title discussion on Talk:Poly before this can be featured. —caes (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: While I think the ships section could still be cleaned up, it's not really a detracting issue for me personally? - flyingthesky (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: from me. Looks good to go! :-) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Down to Agincourt

Nominated by Kingstoken on January 12, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

It has been over a year since we last featured something from Supernatural fandom, last time I nommed a wincest fic, so this time I will nom an influential Destiel fic series that has inspired it's own fandom
Yes: MPH (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I always enjoy reading about fanworks that have inspired mini-fandoms. I added some more info on the author's own spin-off series, a few more links to fanworks of different types (podfic, fanvids) and a bit on author interaction with fans. We could potentially add more varied responses to the reviews/reactions section, but I think the page is good to go as-is. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Article looks great. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Looks good, very interesting fanwork! - flyingthesky (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes --Auntags (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

The Scully Effect

Nominated by WhatAreFrogs? on January 30, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Scully's birthday on February 23rd, would be neat to feature it on that week or around 11 February which is International Day of Women and Girls in Science day - but then the resurrected Bitter Old Fanfic Queen was featured not that long ago which is also a Philedom glossary term and we may want to favor other fandoms for the time being...?

Yes: I'm not concerned about having featured previous X-Files articles MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: SecurityBreach (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: The quotes were very touching! Can we push this over in time for the week of Scully's bday? somefangirl (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yescaes (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Gianna (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Sherlock Sketchbook Project

Nominated by caes on February 9, 2020. As of this writing, the page is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Yes: I wish the intro was a little more filled out, but overall the work to try and document this lost project, and all the great images, is really amazing -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Very cool project, and all that's left of it is documentation! Featuring it may also allow people who remember it/having some material lying around to add to what is still trying to be recovered by Cancennau. I also love the work Hoopla did overlaying the images of the names of the artists. somefangirl (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Love a good fanartist project! We feature a lot of fic, so it's nice to have art take the stage and I agree with somefangirl that featuring it might allow some of the history to be recovered. - flyingthesky (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

We're Not Gay; We Just Love Each Other

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on February 14, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

An interesting article with good commentary about a historical slash fandom trope. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

:Maybe: It looks like their is a empty section, "We're Not Gay, We Just Love Each Other" and "WNGWJLEO", so that would have to be dealt with -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I added that part today, then took if off a few hours later because I combined and expanded it in a section much further up the page. MPH (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Changing vote to Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk)
Yes: I think this page could use some more fic examples, but otherwise its a very good page. I clicked into related articles, to see if there were any fics linked to this trope, and it returned no related links. But it looks like an error as the whole page name is not displayed. I think it's a technical problem caused by the semicolon in the title. Can we fix this, without renaming the page? --Auntags (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
it seems to be trying to encode characters in the url it's not meant to and doing it wrong so i don't really know if there's a good non-rename fix beside hard-coding the infobox - flyingthesky (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm. I tried to fix this by replacing the semi-colon with its html code and moving the page, but it didn't work because those aren't allowed characters in a Fanlore page title (ironically). It occurs to me that we could just swap it out for a comma? It's not as correct, punctuation-wise, but given that a number of the examples of this phrase in action use a comma I think we have a good argument for it (besides "it won't break the page title").
I'm gonna move this discussion over to the article Talk page so we can continue it there and also have a record of it somewhere more permanent than the nominations archive. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Gianna (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Aside from the issue Auntags mentioned, which I'm not sure there's really a good fix for, the page is great. - flyingthesky (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Great article! SecurityBreach (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Minotaur

Nominated by Somefangirl on Feburary 16th, 2020. As of this writing, this page has a good intro, a nice series of comments from fans, and has no content flags.

Yes: I was totally going to nominate this page myself! *high-fives Somefangirl* Though we've never featured a page about a fan before - and I think it's fine to be cautious in doing so - I think certain fan pages are well worth featuring, and I don't see any negative backlash coming from this one (also, the fan in question is sadly no longer with us). I read this page with great interest and I think it would be a lovely feature as this fan was clearly beloved, well-known and would bring back a lot of positive memories for people. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes - flyingthesky (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Your Vagina is a Bigot; My Vagina is a Saint

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on February 23, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

A very well filled-out page about a well-known, if not infamous piece of meta about some hot button issues in fandom including racism and sexism. There's lots of detail on the debate, different reactions and comments that sprang from it.
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes SecurityBreach (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes --Auntags (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Nine Worlds Geekfest

Nominated by Cancennau on 16th December. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Nine Worlds looks to be dying off since they haven't found a new director, so being a featured article might encourage others to share their memories of the con.
Hesitant Yes: It would be nice to have a little bit more history on how convention started, the article mentions a kickstarter page, but not much else. It would be nice to know more about the original founders, who's idea the convention was, how did the planning and kickstarter come about -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I've aimed to address this a bit by adding some information from the con's Kickstarter bio page about who founded it; I also added a bit about how it set itself apart from other cons. I'm not sure if much other info is recorded about how the con came into being, but maybe some attendees of early conventions will be able to add to the page? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I added more about the early history of the con, but it would be good to have more info/quotes about fans' and attendees' experiences and their reactions to the con's closure. —caes (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I leaned towards voting 'hesitant yes' too because I also feel the article needs more information on the early history of the con. I did some research online and it's not that easy to find out about although the con's site is still online. However, one of the Nomination Criteria is 'pages of interest that are well-developed (though not necessarily "finished" or perfect) and will spark interest in visitors and would-be editors'. I think this could work in this case. The last Geekfest was in 2018 and there must be plenty of people around who visited the con or were involved in organising it. So I agree with Cancennau that 'being a featured article might encourage others to share their memories of the con'.
I added a quote from 2014 to the section 'Commitment to Diversity and Safety'. SecurityBreach (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I think it a good article that deserves to be highlighted - even if it is not yet perfect. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: somefangirl (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Gianna (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I've added a bit more background to the page and added a picture that I took at 9W 2017. I do think it would benefit from more comments and recollections from while the con was still going, but since that's part of the reason why we want to feature this page, I feel okay with giving it the thumbs up. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Huddling for Warmth

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 14, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes: MPH (talk)
Yes: I think it could do with a wider variety of examples, particularly from non-western fandoms, but it's not enough for me to vote it down. --enchantedsleeper (talk)
Yes: I agree with enchantedsleeper but it is still i good page. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Self-insertion

Nominated by WhatAreFrogs? on April 6th 24, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags and I think this a very interesting topic.

Yes, agreed! This is very interesting and covers the topic comprehensively. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Very detailed page on an interesting topic --Auntags (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Letters of Comment

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on April 5, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

An interesting article about an aspect of zine fandom and fannish feedback culture.
Yes I agree, very interesting article --WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Very detailed page with some great examples. I fixed one link, but I'm wondering if trekffandom should be redirected somewhere? I don't know enough about Star Trek to make that call --Auntags (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Hm. Based on the context it seems as though the writer was just talking about Trek fandom, i.e. Star Trek fandom, but decided to make it one word?
Can anyone who knows Star Trek comment on whether this is a common term? -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
it's a frequent hashtag on Twitter, but i suspect that's more for character count/visibility than it being a distinct term, although it does have a wikitionary entry. doesn't appear to be in use on tumblr? it's probably fine if we convert it into two words. flyingthesky (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Animated Gif

Nominated by Kingstoken on April 26, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags.

I think this might be an interesting article to feature considering how prevalent the use of gifs/gif sets are in fandoms -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes Great nomination. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes! Very good idea; what a fun page. somefangirl (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes: The intro was lacking a bit of fandom context, so I added that along with a bunch of icon examples. Ah, LJ gifs :D --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I like the progression in this page and all the aspects of gifs that it covers – GoldenFalls (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Sexy Lamp Test

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on April 5, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

This article gets shared a lot on social media, and is an interesting (and so far as I can tell, comprehensive) coverage of the test's origins as well as some of the related "tests" and the issues they deal with. The only thing it lacks perhaps is a section on fannish commentary/discussion, but otherwise it doesn't seem to have any glaring holes.
Yes Just saw a post about on this on tumblr yesterday.--WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
Hesitant Yes: I think the intro could be filled out a little more, or reworded slightly, I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong, but I think the intro needs a little work -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I did some fiddling with the intro to describe what the test is about more up-front and add a bit of additional detail. Let me know if it addresses your concerns? :3 --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Changing vote to Yes: thank you for your edits, the intro is much more readbale now -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes One of our most commonly linked if tweets are anything to go by. Sure to generate some discussion. somefangirl (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Evil!Sam

Nominated by Somefangirl on April 26, 2020. As of writing, it has an intro and no content flags

I find this article interesting as someone who hasn't been in Supernatural fandom; it's similar to many Evil!Character tropes but the interaction with canon makes it acquire more depth. Plus it's got lots of nice links to fanfic, art, and fanvids, and I have a bias towards pages with art on them. somefangirl (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes: It's a good article, and has lots of visual examples which is a bonus. My only hesitation is that we have already had two SPN/SPN RPF featured articles this year, but if everyone else it okay with that, than so am I -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I think the page is laid out well, has given broad examples of terminology, examples of works, and even archived links in case any of those contained in the article become dead. -- Jacksbrak (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Isnt' this the Supernatural equivalent to the Evil!Spock trope? (minus the beard? (-; ) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I have the same slight reservations as Kingstoken about featuring another Supernatural article, but well, the series is ending - we can let them have this ;) It's an interesting article and we don't often feature character-specific pages or tropes. I made some changes to the introduction to make it a bit clearer and easier to read. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Sweet Charity

Nominated by Kingstoken on April 28, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags.

Yes: Looks good to me. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes! Comprehensive, good quotes, pictures, and uplifting! Everything we need! somefangirl (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Yay for good LifeJournal era articles. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: but could the quote at the top of the page be moved under the first paragraph? It'd provide a bit of context for the quote, to people unfamiliar with the charity. --Auntags (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I moved the quote down -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

University of Iowa Fanzine Archives

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on May 1, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

A really interesting project/piece of fandom history preservation with a well-filled-out page.
Yes: I'm wondering if we should move the quote box at the top of the page to the bottom of the intro paragraph, it's not necessary, but it does look a little odd starting with a quote, but maybe that's just me -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Interesting and relevant to fanlore! I also think we should move the quote box because it looks like it might be related to the redirection question. somefangirl (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I moved the quote box down to the bottom of the intro paragraph -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Glad to see something likes this nominated. Good article :-) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Fascinating project --Auntags (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Shipping

Nominated by Kingstoken on May 07, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags.

Ship and shipping are such common fandom practices now I thought it might be nice to feature an article about it's history -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes!. Just saw your most recent edit and was checking whether this has been a FA before and wanted to add it here, but you beat me to it :-) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Hard to believe we haven't already featured this! I added a section for "Anti-shipper" as I feel like that variation on the term and its evolution is important to mention. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes!: I'm amazed we haven't featured this already, as well. A no-brainer! somefangirl (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: --Auntags (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Big Bang

Nominated by Kingstoken on May 22, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags.

Although not a perfect article I still thought it might be interesting to feature, because if someone is new to fandom and sees this type challenge their first thought is probably "what is it?" And it seems like every major fandom has at least one Big Bang Challenge -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes! It's a classic term and I often find myself explaining Big Bangs to people who are new-ish to fic/fandom.-- somefangirl (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes I agree that this is a term one can see often and the page is decent enough. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes! As others have said, it's a little lean in some areas but this term comes up ALL THE TIME. Plus, if it's featured, more people might organize them! :D --JessC (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I felt that the History section was lacking so I fleshed it out with more context based on details found elsewhere on the page and some info from the original Big Bang's Fanlore page. I made some other additions and tweaks including to the intro. I think it's good to go :3 -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

The Sparklypoo Comic

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on May 31, 2020. As of writing, this has a good intro and no content flags.

I went looking for this comic (which I remember fondly from the 2000s) and was gratified to learn that it had a decent Fanlore page. It was very influential in HP fandom and could make a good Featured Article subject.
Yes: It's a very good page and I think it would be nice to feature some fanart. --Auntags (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Good page and I agree on the fanart angle. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I am unfamiliar with this glorious thing and my life is now richer because I read about it on Fanlore. --Roamingcataloger (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I just added the type of medium to the infobox, and the links are archived/up to date. The page overall is well put together. --LaserBeam1 (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. It's a very nice-looking page, with interesting external links, as well as the sample image of the comic. Also back-up archived many links to Archive.Is. Would be willing to source link parse them if someone wishes. -- Jacksbrak (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Buffy/Faith

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on June 2, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

This is an iconic femslash ship from early 2000s fandom and has a decently filled out Fanlore page. Worth a feature, I think.
Yes: I think my Buffy bias is well known but it's a good summary of an important ship. I added one example of fanart, and a link to an episode review by Passion of the Nerd that goes into all the early instances of subtext.--Auntags (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I feel like there must be more common tropes that could be added, but overall a pretty well filled out pairing article -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: As an outsider to this fandom I find the article very informative and comprehensive of the ship! I especially like the trope section which does a great job of expanding info on the ship/fandom practices. Patchlamb (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH MPH (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
FYI, I expanded the trope section to clarify things a bit (I hope). Also added info on Buffy season 8 tropes.--Auntags (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: It's a good detailed page, very informative, about an important femslash ship with a large fandom. EvilToTheCore13 (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)EvilToTheCore13
Yes: A good, thorough look at the pairing, without being too overwhelming! Julie (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Lots of good content here --Mokuroh (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Lysator

Nominated by MPH. Lysator was the first Blake's 7 mailing list, and it has an interesting history.

Yes: Great page that made for a very interesting read. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: However, I do think the intro could be filled out a bit more -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I beefed up the intro a bit, see what you think? MPH (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking better, thanks :) -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: An interesting read, and a useful look into how fandom worked in the early days of the internet. Julie (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: No content flags. Bit of a niche topic that would otherwise be buried in other fannish history. -- Error cascade (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Fan History Wiki

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on June 14, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

This is a hefty article, but it makes for very interesting reading (so much wank) and by my assessment doesn't seem to be missing anything glaring. I'm reasonably confident that featuring this wouldn't bring any undue controversy down on our heads after so long but let me know if you think otherwise.
Yes: This is one of my favorite fanlore articles for its extensiveness and just plain old excitement factor. I've even seen people commenting on this specific article on tumblr once or twice. -- Error cascade (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes I think I may have been one of the last people that used the wiki back in 2018 before it vanished forever :-( --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes --Auntags (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Rejected nominations

Gundam

Nominated by flyingthesky on 17 October 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. The Gundam franchise is currently celebrating its 40th anniversary so now is a great time to feature this article and maybe entice someone into making any of the like eighty things I redlinked? One can hope.

Yes: A very extensive page. Would be great if the red links in the intro could be taken care of first but that isn't a showstopper for me... --WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
I thought about doing that, but since they would all be stubs I figured it would be better to leave for someone who actually knows more than I do about UC Gundam/Gunpla or really wants to tackle the entire history of Hello Kitty/Toonami. Flyingthesky (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes: The red links are a little irritating and unfortunately I know too little about the topic to help you out. But I think the article is well written and contains a lot of interesting stuff so I vote 'yes'. SecurityBreach (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Leaning towards no: I sense I'm going to be outvoted on this one, but I'm not convinced by this page because it seems to feature very little fannish content? The vast majority of the article is taken up by an exhaustive history of the Gundam franchise and while there are mentions here and there about fans' reactions to things, to me it doesn't read like a page about Gundam fandom, as it's more concerned with the releases of various different series and model kits - the primary focus is on the official canon, not on the fandom or fanworks.
This wouldn't bother me so much if there were more to the page than just the history, but after that there's just one section on Japanese versus English fandom, and then external links. While I realise it's hard to do this on a page that is so general, I would like to see it have some content on fanworks and also fan communities.
The red links don't bother me nearly as much as the lack of fannish content, although I might just go away and create a stub for Hello Kitty because I can xD --enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe: There are lot of red links, it isn't usually necessary for featured articles for all links to be blue, but this seems to have more than most. I also agree with enchantedsleeper that the Japanese versus English section should be filled out a little more, and it needs more fandom content overall -- Kingstoken (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Rejected. It's been three months since the nomination, and the page still needs edits to address the concerns raised during the nominations process.

Misogyny in Fandom

Nominated by SecurityBreach on November 9, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Yes: Great article. I added a few internal links :-) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Very good article. I fell down the rabbit hole with this one, following more internal links than I'd meant to.--Auntags (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk)
No: Personally, I still have a really hard time processing this page. Those concerns are detailed in Talk:Misogyny_in_Fandom#Reorganizing_Page and solutions have been discussed but not implemented. —caes (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I hesitate because it feels like the article just scratches the surface of the issue, and it seems like it is trying to cover too much, although with an overview article like this it is hard to cover such a massive topic. I will say I do think some of these topics and bullet points should have articles of their own, like I know there has been some discussion this past year about how badly teenage girls were treated, back in the day, because they dared to like Twilight, most notably the video essay by Lindsay Ellis, and that is just one example -- Kingstoken (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Gianna (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Rejected. It's been more than three months since this was nominated, and the issues raised haven't been addressed.
✪ 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