Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations/Archive (2021)

This Fanlore page is currently protected from editing as it is archived. Please see the current page for the most current version of Fanlore policy or discussions.

About this page

This page lists Featured Article nominations that were posted on the Fanlore main page in 2021 or that were rejected during 2021 due to insufficient yes votes. For current nominations, visit Fanlore: Featured Article Nominations.

Approved nominations

The Course of Honour

Nominated by error_cascade on November 30, 2020. As of writing the page has a good intro and looks reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I find it to be an interesting article on an original slash work that developed its own fandom. Covers a controversy around tag synning on AO3; Yuletide.

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes -- MPH (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes -- Eliadan (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes: I made a few updates as parts of the page felt a little out of date as they were written in 2019, and tweaked a couple of the subheadings. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Spring Fling (podfic anthology)

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on January 2, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. A significant podfic anthology that inspired the Pod Together challenge. The page features fan reactions, banners and seems well-fleshed-out. Plus, podfic!

Yes: This is a very interesting and informative page. I liked the fan reactions and comments in particular. --Auntags (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. -- Eliadan (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Crossover

Nominated by Kingstoken on November 08, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and and is pretty comprehensive with no content flags.

Maybe: For the length of the page and the breadth of the topic, I'd like the intro to be a little more fleshed out? Also there are criminally few fan comments, especially since the text preceding the comments says they're a love/hate thing in fandom and the three comments under it are all positive, which doesn't feel like a good representation of PPoV to me. - flyingthesky (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

In fairness, I added that text after Kingstoken nominated the page, and I would say that the three comments aren't all positive because the top comment's point is that they're almost never done well. But I agree with adding more fan comments if we can - I added the three AO3 comments as a starting point. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Swapping my vote to Yes with the changes. - flyingthesky (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes: We've now got a lot more fan comments on this page, and I also moved some text up from the Fan Comments section to flesh out the intro and address flyingthesky's other concern. I also built out the "More Information" section into a fuller list of communities and events, with wikilinks to some other crossover-related pages. And I made some changes to the subheadings which I think improves the layout of the page (hopefully others will agree!) --enchantedsleeper (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I like the additional information that has been added and this feels like a very fleshed out article now. Great additions enchantedsleeper! --Eliadan (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Article is looking great now. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Meta

Nominated by Kingstoken on January 18, 2021. As of this writing, it has a good intro with no content flags.

Yes -- Error cascade (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes A great and informative page. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes: The page is well written and informative. --Mika Marguerite (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes--Auntags (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Buddy Cop Fandom

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 2, 2021. As of this writing, it has a good intro with no content flags.

I stumbled across this article and I thought it might be fun to feature, it does a good job of explaining what the fandom is and why it was popular for a long time -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes: A great idea for a feature, and I think it covers the topic well. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes: The article covers the topic well from what I saw and I like the number of examples given. --Eliadan (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes --Auntags (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Act of Creation Will Be Your Salvation

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 5, 2021. As of this writing, it has a good intro with no content flags.

Influential and highly recced fic in Steve/Tony fandom. I think it has been a quite awhile since we featured anything from the MCU -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. This looks good to me and I like the variety of fan interactions shown: podfics, fan art, fanvids, and reviews. --Eliadan (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes from me as well. It is an excellent fic - I actually didn't know quite how highly regarded it was. Good one to feature. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think the article would be interesting to feature and hit people in their guts with some angsty feels. Plus, the Fanwork examples are wonderful and I'm sure readers will enjoy them. --Mika Marguerite (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Petz

Nominated by SecurityBreach on January 28, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. -- SecurityBreach (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe: there is something about the intro paragraph I find confusing, as a new person that had never heard of this fandom before I'm still not sure quite what it is from that paragraph, although I'm not sure how to fix it. -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote to yes after changes made to the introduction, it is much easier to comprehend for a newbie. Good work, guys! -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. I agree that the into paragraph feels a bit confusing. Having read the whole page I think it might help if a line from the Game Play section was added to the intro. Currently the intro says a lot about the naming convention of the game but doesn’t really give an idea of what the game actually is when playing it.--Eliadan (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Good suggestion by Eliadan- I added a bit to the intro based on the Gameplay section to give an idea of what the games involve. I also added some info on fan activities to the end to give a sense of how the fandom interacts with the game, and I removed some of the detail around naming conventions as that's not really needed in the intro (I added some of it to the History section so that it wasn't lost). --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits enchantedsleeper. I think the intro works better now so I'm changing my vote to Yes. --Eliadan (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I think this article is ready to feature with the reworked introduction. It's an interesting page! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes Thanks for all the work people put into this page. MPH (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Endverse

Nominated by Kingstoken on January 25, 2021. As of this writing, it has a good intro with no content flags.

An alternative reality shown in season 5 of SPN that fans still create fanworks in. I think it has been not quite a year since we featured anything from SPN fandom -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Almost there: I know next to nothing about Supernatural, but I know I love canon alternative realities. Still, I feel there ought to be more fannish voices in the Fan Appeal section. - SecurityBreach (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Changing vote to yes after recent edits. Thank you! -- SecurityBreach (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I been trying to find more fan comments, but it's hard, I know a few months ago there was a discussion in the supernatural thread of fail-fandomanon about why fans love the Endverse, but I was busy with other things and I forgot to bookmark it at the time, and now I can't find it again, although I have never been great with searching dreamwidth -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I felt like it needed an expanded intro, so I added a bit about the fan appeal of the episode to the intro, and added some bits to the Fandom section, as well as a couple of fanworks. I also added two comments from Tumblr and one from FFA, and I saw that Error cascade also added a comment. While I know there are always more comments to add, I feel like we have a good range now, and I think the article is well-fleshed-out in other respects. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes MPH (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes | Julie (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes --Eliadan (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Yesterday Upon The Stair

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 15, 2021. As of this writing, it has a good intro with no content flags.

A well known fic in BNHA fandom. I stumbled across this article, and it looks really well filled out, I thought it might make a good featured article. Also I don't think we have featured anything in this fandom before -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes — Maybe I'm biased because I wrote a bunch of it, but I think it would be an excellent feature! - Hoopla (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes: YUTS is the most popular BNHA gen fanfic on AO3 and so far, the article does a good job of telling why. I also like how the article follows the PPOV and includes the negative reviews as well. Plus, I don't think we have featured an anime related article in a while, so that would be nice. --Mika Marguerite (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I'm not in this fandom but that article is very detailed. It would be nice to feature a fanfic for an anime. Patchlamb (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes: As someone who has read this particular fic I think the article is very good and considering its popularity I think worth featuring. I also appreciate that it includes both positive and negative reviews. --Eliadan (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Multi Animator Project

Nominated by Patchlamb on Dec 20, 2020. As of writing the page has a good intro and looks reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I feel like I haven't seen many articles about video-based fanart featured or nominated, so I thought it would be nice to nominate one. "MAPs" reach a lot of different fandoms.

Hesitant Yes: I would love to see this page featured as it directly addresses the issue around the acronym MAP, and it highlights a type of collaborative fanwork that I'm unfamiliar with. I think the intro could be reworked a little bit - I had to reread it because I originally thought the first MAP was in 2019 because Cattrell's blogpost was referenced before the video. Also the name and host of the first MAP could be added to the intro. --Auntags (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe: It feels a bit short on Fannish comments. Also the controvery about the term could maybe flashed out a bit/maybe a different term is currently in development? --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe: I'm not sure I like how some of intro is worded, like saying "self-explanatory", well it might not be "self-explanatory" to someone who has never heard about this before, and it also feels a bit jumbled to me. I think, if the problems with the intro could be fixed, it might be a good article to feature -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Changed vote to yes, after changes made to intro -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes: It looks like Patchlamb has been diligent in addressing the issues raised here, and the intro is much improved! I would have liked some more comments from fans beyond the ones we have on the MAP acronym controversy, but a quick search on Google and Dreamwidth didn't yield much, maybe because it's known mainly to specific corners of fandom and doesn't have a lot of wider awareness.

Auntags, WhatAreFrogs? and Kingstoken - any thoughts on the page as it is now? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it is better, but I still didn't realize that all the participants involved where actually drawing the clips themselves, and not augmenting clips from canon material, I didn't realize that until I clicked on the AMV link which has a couple of lines referencing MAPs and what they are, I hope I'm not being dense, but it wasn't completely obvious to me -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

How about now? — PCCB 00:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Much better, thank you -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I only became familiar with the term when the controversy over it's new usage was all over my twitter timeline so I think with the new edits the page explains well what the term stands for and gives good examples. --Eliadan (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

No Man's Sky

Nominated by Patchlamb on February 17, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I think No Man's Sky has a pretty interesting community and history, and I felt it would be fun to nominate a video game fandom.

Yes: As someone who was interested in the game when it was announced but then never ended up playing it I had no idea the community behind No Man's Sky, which the article explains well. It seems like the game has a fandom that is very different from most in the sense that it is more based on communal play and categorizing than the traditional making fanfic and fan art, none of which I knew previously.

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk)

Yes -- Error cascade (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- The page does a good job of explaining the game's fannish history and is an interesting read. --Mika Marguerite (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I found this a very interesting read and it's great to feature a game-related page. I felt as though the intro needed a bit of expanding to more directly capture the game's appeal to fans, which I've just done. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

How Much Is That Geisha In the Window?

Nominated by flyingthesky on 8 March 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

admittedly, there's another firefly nomination up there but i thought this might be an interesting page to feature too, since it's a vid about the lack of Asian representation/racism in firefly and that's been a hot topic recently in fandom. plus it's been a while since we featured a vid. - flyingthesky (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- Auntags (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- MPH (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- Error cascade (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- Erimia (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Sabine (fan)

Nominated by SecurityBreach on March 15, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is very comprehensive, with no content flags.

The page is a beautiful tribute to Sabine, a multifandom fan who passed away in 2013. --SecurityBreach (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Very much yes. MPH (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Although it would nice to change some of the red links to blue -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your vote! I did some work on the red links and made a few stubs. I'm not sure what to do about The Mango though. I looked hard on the internet but I fear this mailing list is gone forever :( --SecurityBreach (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes --Auntags (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Loyal Opposition

Nominated by Erimia on March 4, 2021. As of this writing, it has a good intro with no content flags.

Not an easy read by any means but I think it's an important document of the Breen-Bradley sexual abuse scandal, as well as an insight into the attitudes and dynamics of the fandom of that time. -- Erimia (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I went through and added some wiki links for context. There is a typo I mentioned on the talk page (I'm curious as to whether it was a typo in the original zine - probably was). I also want to open the idea of a content warning for discussion? Child sexual abuse is a potentially triggering/upsetting topic to feature on the main page. Would a content warning banner help alleviate that? I know there's a bit of a generational gap with content warnings and that's never been addressed as a wiki policy, so... thoughts. -- Error cascade (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Not Yet: Do we have any information about The Great Breen Boondoggle? Because it seems very strange to feature a zine that is in response to another written document and not be able to click through and find out what that document said. Also, the contributors of this zine were very wrong and he did turn out to be a convicted child molester, this isn't mentioned on this page, but it seems like very relevant information. I also agree with Error cascade, if we do feature it I think that some sort of warning might be appropriate, because we are talking about real life, not fictional, abuse -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote to yes based on the changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the text is here. It is part of this main page. I could make a page on Fanlore for it. Or we could just link to it as an archived link. MPH (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes That's my vote for this page as a featured nomination. Though I do think that it needs a trigger warning. MPH (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes Altjough a sensitive topic, the page is a good one. Also agree on the content warning/warning to the social media peeps expecting flames when it is featured. --14:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

MPH has gone in and edited the introduction to the page based on thoughts that Doro offered to the Gardeners mailing list on how best to deal with this as a Featured Article; the intro is now much clearer up front about the subject of the zine and Breen's sex offence convictions. Could Error cascade and Kingstoken take a look again and add thoughts as to whether this is sufficient in terms of a warning about the article's content? We could also add an additional note at the end of the excerpt that gets featured on the front page reiterating that this page deals with sensitive topics and to use caution when clicking through.

MPH has also made a page for The Great Breen Boondoggle, Or All Berkeley Is Plunged Into War (thank you, MPH!) which should address the other part of Kingstoken's issues with the nomination.

I also think, although we agree that this article is important and worthy of being featured on Fanlore's front page, that we should not feature it on social media where it is often very difficult to give things their full and deserved context. That's more of a matter for the committee internally, but since WhatAreFrogs? referenced social media above I thought I would mention it here. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The intro looks a lot better now in my opinion and clearly lets people know what is going to be discussed in the article now, I will be changing my vote to yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the new intro adds sufficient warning and I'm willing to let my yes vote stand with just the revisions on the intro. However, in my last revision to the page, I added an italicized content warning at the top similar to general sort of disambiguation notices we regularly use on the wiki. If anyone objects and wants to remove or rephrase it, my yes vote still stands. But I don't think it detracts from the content and it also lets someone know at a glance what they're getting into by reading through the article. -- Error cascade (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think it's a very good article on a topic I knew nothing about. I also think that MPH's recent rephrasing of the intro (thank you very much!) is sufficient in terms of a warning about the article's content. --SecurityBreach (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Theban Band

Nominated by WhatAreFrogs? on March 21, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Also, georgious art ;-) Stumbled over the page ny accident and remebered the artists back from the early 2000s.

Yes: Although I do wish the intro was worded a little differently, but I can't quite put my finger on how to change it -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It's written in that breezy, sometimes puffery-ish, cliquey LJish way some articles (I'm looking at you, Stargate Atlantis) were during the very beginning of Fanlore. That's how it feels to me, anyway. MPH (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to see the article's intro not focus on their gender and other personal details (and especially not lead off with a cite to a mainstream news media source). If others think that these things should be included, how about further down in another section and instead be validated by fan comments instead? MPH (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewriting the intro with these comments in mind, though feel free to edit it further. I tried to make it substantial without repeating too much of what is already said further down. At the moment the Bay Area Reporter article is only cited in the Visibility section, and there isn't any reference on the page to the creators' gender or nationality, though that can be added back in. I think it's fine to leave out, though. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you enchantedsleeper, the intro reads a lot better now, and I think would be great for a featured article -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I honestly didn't know about these two despite their fame, and the page was a fascinating read. Definitely Featured Article-worthy as I'm sure the feature will bring back quite a few memories, and it's a great snapshot of fandom in the mid-00s. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes: A very interesting read! --SecurityBreach (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Like others I hadn't heard of these two before and definitely think it would make for a nice featured article. --Eliadan (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

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 --Eliadan (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)

Nomination approved.

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)

Changed my vote to Yes Thanks for all the additions, it is much more comprehensive now. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Han/Luke Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (deleted scene)

Nominated by Kingstoken on April 28, 2021. As of this writing, it has a good intro with no content flags.

I thought this might be interesting to feature, especially since the original tumblr post has since been lost to the sands of time (although thankfully saved via the wayback machine), but it introduced newer star wars fans to the history of slash in that fandom. Also, I think it has been a little while since we featured anything from Star Wars fandom -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Love it! (Also, I now ship this XD) --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Looks good to me and I think it's an interesting one since it was based around a gif set. --Eliadan (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Love all the fan comments --Auntags (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

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)

Changed subheader. — PCCB 10:05, 30 April 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)

Changed vote to Almost There after recent edits. --SecurityBreach (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Changing vote to Yes after edits on the intro were made. --SecurityBreach (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Added a recent event, poaching, and fan comments. — PCCB 10:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Almost there: The recent edits from PCCB are great! The page is now much more up to date and I think they have addressed the bulk of concerns raised in this nomination discussion. The only thing I'd still like to see before this is featured is a bit of an expanded introduction which summarises the main issues covered on the page. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have expanded the intro to something that I think represents the page more fully, though I would maybe tweak it a bit for the front page. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm a yes with the changes that MPH made to the article. Thank you! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Kudos to all the editors who made changes. The page looks great --Auntags (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Ger Bear Project

Nominated by Kingstoken on April 18, 2021. As of this writing, it has a good intro with no content flags.

I stumbled across this article and thought it might be cute thing to feature, plus a good example of fancrafts -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to find some fandom comments! MPH (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes That looks great! I added two archived urls and made a stub on Brenda F. Bell so there's one red link less now. --SecurityBreach (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I just dealt with another red link. (I don't think, as the one who created the page, I can exactly go around voting on it, though.) Greer Watson (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes That's my vote. MPH (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Very cute! Fan comments would be a nice-to-have, but the article is feature-worthy as it stands, IMO. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: A really different sort of project so I think it would make an interesting feature. --Eliadan (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Tumblr Titanic Vid

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on May 19, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes! - StringQuartets&ChiaPets (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Perfect capture of a moment in time haha. --Eliadan (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I remember seeing this meme a lot back in the old days of yore. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Twist and Shout

Nominated by Kingstoken on April 28, 2021. As of this writing, it has a good intro with no content flags.

A famous (or infamous) fic in Supernatural fandom that was extremely popular with Destiel fans, and spawned it's own small fandom. I know we had another SPN featured article earlier in the year, but I think some time has passed so that they wouldn't be too close together -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Almost: I have had my eye on this one to nominate for ages, and I agree that it definitely has the makings of a Featured Article. I think there just need to be a few more fan comments for such a famous/infamous fic (I'm sure I could help to dig some up). --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Updating to yes: I've expanded the intro and added more reviews as well as some other bits that I feel are reflective of the fic's impact on fandom. I plan to add more stuff, but I'm happy to vote yes as there's always more that can be added to a page. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Almost: I agree with enchantedsleeper, I think this could use more fan comments, but the rest of the article is great. Not being in the fandom this is the first I'd heard of this fic, but I took a quick glance at more recent comments on the AO3 version and there are some interesting ones from fans who are mentioning how they first read it in 2014 and are now revisiting after the series as ended. Also, seems like since the AO3 version was archived the work has been updated to incomplete and the first and second chapter swapped? Not sure if any of that is worth mentioning.

Updated to yes: after the recent edits. — Eliadan (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

My understanding based on this FFN thread, https://fail-fandomanon.dreamwidth.org/470995.html?thread=2820633555#cmt282, is that the fic is complete, but the author probably made a mistake when transferring it over to AO3, and they have never fixed it. As for the switching of the first two chapters, this is the first I'm hearing about that -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I think this would be a great feature as it is now. But if you're looking for more fan comments, there are loads on the goodreads page, linked in the references. --Auntags (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes --SecurityBreach (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Almost: As with many works deemed popular, I agree this could use more fan comments besides the reviews. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Wonderful World of Makebelieve

Nominated by Auntags on May 26, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Yes: Would it be feasible to list all the mailing lists that archived their works here, especially ones we have articles for on Fanlore? Or do you think that would clutter this page too much? Perhaps we could make a separate page for that, or maybe not -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes is my vote. As per a page for mailing lists, how about a page called "List of The Wonderful World of Makebelieve Mailing Lists" and have a link on the main page for it? MPH (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2021

Yes: This is an interesting and comprehensive article!Patchlamb (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Almost: I think this page will make for a great feature, but I am a bit unsure about the way that the page currently conflates WWOMB and The Squidgeworld Archive when I think they are two separate things? I've raised a comment about it on the Talk page (forgive my stream-of-consciousness structuring). --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Updating vote to Yes following recent discussion and edits to the page. enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Great archive, interesting piece of fandom history, good, detailed page. -- Erimia (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

A Trekkie's Tale

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on May 31, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

The original story that gave rise to the term 'Mary Sue'. I've worked to build it out into something that I think is worthy of being featured.

Yes: Although, I do wish the intro was a little more filled out, but I'm not sure what else to add -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Good point - it was a little thin. I've added a paragraph to the end that talks a bit about the fic's impact and fandom legacy. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes--Auntags (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes This is a really cool article! I had heard about the origins of the term Mary Sue having been in Star Trek fandom but not the specific fic it came from --Chanterelle (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- Erimia (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

A Matter Of Willful Copyright Infringement

Nominated by Kingstoken on May 31, 2021. As of this writing, it has a good intro with no content flags.

I was reading a tumblr post that linked here, and I found it fascinating, but it also made me sad and anger. So, I thought it might be a good thing to feature -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes A lot of work went into this page, including tracking down original publications. I made a minor tweak to the intro that I hope is okay. MPH (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Added: wish I could find more about the paper mache thing, if it actually ever existed. MPH (talk)

Yes: Thoroughly researched and an interesting read. A good look into zine copyright issues in the 90s. Patchlamb (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I really enjoyed the article. The introduction is catchy and the bullet points and quotations make the article read like a real report. Plus, the topic is relevant and I'm sure it will pique the interest of readers to learn about fannish concerns that are relevant now, have existed for quite a long time. Mika Marguerite (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes --SecurityBreach (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I found it fascinating. Very well researched, and the organization is clear. Greer Watson (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Very interesting article with good attention to detail and organisation of the information. Kittycesario (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. — PCCB (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Almost: My one issue with this article is that the introduction doesn't summarise what the article covers; it acts more as a prologue for the article rather than saying what it is about. I think we can consider this to have enough votes for being featured, but I would like to rejig the intro before we approve it. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Reylo

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

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Almost there - I do think the section on anti-reylo pushback [subheading fannish resistance to the pairing] could use a little more expansion on both 1) the reasons people disliked it which in my circles included a lot of discussion of claims of reylo as an abusive dynamic moreso than a possibly incestuous one and 2)perspectives from multishippers - I know a lot of Star Wars people expressed that being a multishipper was really hard in the broader sw fandom with shipping Reylo being the breaking point to being accepted as a multishipper. Also maybe a few more examples of fanmixes and meta in the Example Fanwork section. -- Error cascade (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Expanded anti-shipping, added meta, added fanmix. Acceptable? — PCCB 10:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Section on anti-shipping looks great, I'll add a few ship manifesto type metas sometime soon and then change my vote to yes. -- Error cascade (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Change vote to yes -- Error cascade (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes - MPH (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes - Well done to the editors who made recent additions to this page! It's come along way. --Auntags (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes - Legendofthefireemblem (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Origin Stories

Nominated by Auntags on June 5, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

It's a well known vid from 2008, that contributed to discussions about race and appropriation in the Buffyverse.

Yes: It might be nice to have some screenshot analysis, but not strictly necessary -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Great page. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Admittedly, this is the first time I've voted on a nomination, but it seems like a pretty informative and coherant article -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Good one! --SecurityBreach (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes Looks good to me :) -- Mokuroh (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Smarm

Nominated by memorizingthedigitsofpi on June 15, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. This is a fandom term that has fallen into disuse that I think might be useful to current fans who are looking for ways to describe queerplatonic relationships.

Yes: More examples from other fandoms might be nice, but not strictly necessary, the article does a good job explaining the term and it's use in fandom -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Almost Yes: The Some fans like it section is empty. Otherwise I think it would be a good feature, and a term I haven't come across before! --Auntags (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I added a couple of examples to both categories. Good call out! memorizingthedigitsofpi (talk)

ETA Changing my vote to yes --Auntags (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Looks good, especially after recent edits. --SecurityBreach (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I added just a few words to the intro to mention that the term gets used with slightly different connotations at times, because it felt not quite reflective of the varied examples of usage that were on the page. This will be a really interesting feature, though! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Two-Up Truly Queered

Nominated by MPH on June 1, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Some of the topics it touches upon: We're Not Gay We Just Love Each Other, political commentary, response fic (its uses, eithics), The Professionals... MPH (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe: The intro feels a little thin to me. I also think some further explanation about why it was controversial would be good -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I added a bit to the intro. Hopefully, this helps? MPH (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I changed my vote after the changes were made to the intro -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Not yet. Yes. I would like the intro to include some information about the story itself other than the pairing - length, plot, how it was published? Ideally, I'd like the intro to mention how it was crucially different from the story it was based on, rather than readers having to try to figure that out from long quotes. - Elf (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That's helpful advice, Elf. I expanded the intro with it in mind. MPH (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Changed my vote; it's now clear from the start what it's about, and that makes reading the quotes and reactions much smoother. - Elf (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes: The expanded intro really makes this page and helped me understand why this story is notable - Auntags (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hesitant yes: I find the article to be a little "intro-heavy" now - sorry, I know the whole point was to flesh out the intro, but it strikes me that the intro contains more detail on the fic being responded to than the fic the page is about. I am also thinking that, either in the intro or as a separate section, we could talk more about the way TUTQ incorporated large segments of the original fic, which I think is quite atypical of a response fic? And seems to have generated some discussions about plagiarism and ethics from my brief reading of the comments.

I can work on this later, but I wanted to set down my thoughts here first just as a kind of heads up. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: I slimmed down the summary of Two-Up in the intro a little bit, added a tiny bit more on fan discussion in the intro, and added a "Writing Style" section. Shout if you have any issues with these changes, but I'm formally updating my vote to Yes. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Some great work has been done on this page recently. Thank you so much, y'all. --SecurityBreach (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Rainbow Bondage Bear

Nominated by StringQuartets&ChiaPets on May 14, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I think it's really interesting, its an event in which tinhatting might be true which is cool, and covers both the events and the fandom theory around it quite well.StringQuartets&ChiaPets (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Although, I don't completely understand why the fans think the bear is related to the pairing Larry in particular -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's mainly because on a couple of occasions the bears' clothing imitated what Larry had done the day before, they had a picture of a man named Larry signed "love larry," a color scheme thing, reflections of one of the members that comprises the ship taking a picture of the bears, members of the band looking directly at the members of the ship when asked about the bears, and the changing of profile pics on the ship members' birthdays. I can try to make that clearer in the theories section. StringQuartets&ChiaPets (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No: I think this article needs more PPOV. The majority of content on this page appears to support only one fan theory; I think the perspectives of other fans should be better represented. Also, this is a minor quibble, but most of the links seem to be unarchived external links rather than citations or source-formatted links. -- Chanterelle (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I can try to find more theories but from what I can find it tends to be either the theory presented or that the bears are just there for fun and there isn't much beyond that. I appreciate the input and I'll see if I can fix it. StringQuartets&ChiaPets (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: because is so bizarre and weird. The 1D fandom seems very strange *lol* --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: This is a very informative page and the topic is so wild and yet so very fannish, it was a fascinating read. -- Erimia (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

No: This page is too one-sided and many of the edits from other POVs are quickly removed, which makes me concerned that its use as a featured article would push one group's agenda. Other 1D fans' POVs, especially those of anti-Larries, need to be better represented in the article. For example, the "alternate theory" of it just being a crew member placing the bears there for fun has been confirmed by said crew member, and that fact should be leveraged above referring to it as an "alternate theory." Or else, a better array of nonbelievers' responses to why they find the RBB Theory problematic could be represented.Ulanbataar (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Ulanbataar, I'm so glad you're willing to tell me about your concerns regarding agendas in the 1D fandom. I was under the impression, from the research I did for the page, that there were no alternate theories? They just didn't believe that the bears represented the theory covered on the page? I've never come across any alternate theories about it. If you have any idea where to look for those or where to find the crew member's confirmation that they were responsible I would appreciate it immensely. I'll try to add the stuff you pointed out! Thanks for your help! --StringQuartets&ChiaPets (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find any confirmation regarding any crew members involvement no matter where I look. There is a video with RBB behind the crew member for a brief moment. Is that the one you are talking about? I tried but I couldn't find any sort of confirmation, only denials. Thank you for your suggestion! --StringQuartets&ChiaPets (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would also add that I'm not sure what Ulanbataar is referencing with POVs being removed from the page, since as far as I can tell, there isn't anything in the history of the page that seems to have been taken out. As we have 4 Yes votes and the concerns from the No votes have been addressed as much as possible, I'm going to say this is good to go. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes: This is really interesting and seems to be comprhensive! --Coconutcream99 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

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)

Very belatedly updating this to a Yes vote - this page feels more rounded now with additional fan comments and fanwork examples, and I've also added some info on why the fic was orphaned when all the author's other works were deleted, which I think is interesting. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 17:19, 25 July 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)

Maybe: I'm not bothered by it being short, though I do agree that some parts of this article could be polished, changed around, or expanded. Otherwise I agree with Enchantedsleeper that the small selection of fanworks and responses do make it seem insubstantial even though the article says it was a fan fav in the fandom. Patchlamb (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added more fanart examples -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think it's lookining great now after the recent edits. --SecurityBreach (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Littlest Pet Shop (YouTube)

Nominated by Patchlamb on May 23, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Though it's a bit of a microfandom, so sort of small and short, I think a toy franchise having a fandom like how Littlest Pet Shop does is really unique and could make for an interesting featured article.

Yes It would be interesting to see there was any discourse about posting videos or shipping or that sort of thing (which I didn't see on the page) but I think it's fun to see a community that seems so entrenched on a single site. It would also be cool if there were fannish comments, such as role-playing, in the comment section which I believe isn't uncommon in youtube based fandoms. --StringQuartets&ChiaPets (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes: I think the intro needs to be slightly reworded or reworked, it wasn't until I read the fandom section that I understood truly what the article was about -- Kingstoken (talk)

I moved some info on what the fandom is from the fandom section to the intro to hopefully help, as I wasn't sure how else to describe it. If it still seems the intro is confusing, let me know which parts and I'll try and re-word it some more. Patchlamb (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I've done some more reworking of the intro to hopefully improve the flow and sum up in the first line exactly what the community is about. Kingstoken, does that address your issues with it?

Also, one thing that I wasn't sure about when reworking the intro that I could use clarification on (Patchlamb, maybe you know?) - where the intro mentions the use of LPS toys in kidcore blogging, is that actually considered part of LPStube or is that a separate thing? Because right now it's kind of implictly grouped in with LPStube, but it sounds like it has more to do with wider LPS fandom than the specific YouTube-based LPStube community. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The intro is much better, thank you -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@enchantedsleeper The LPSTube tag on Tumblr does include a few posts double-tagged with LPSTube and kidcore as well as toycore, though kidcore itself isn't an LPS community, rather a community of aesthetic posters that tends to also include LPS toys within it. The regular "Littlest Pet Shop" tag on Tumblr is almost all aesthetic posts tagged with kidcore/toycore, along with some other tags like age regression and nostalgiacore. I'm thinking it's worth mentioning that the LPS toys are often included within the kidcore/toycore communities, and that LPSTube does sometimes overlap with them, though that doesn't necessarily mean kidcore/toycore people are in the LPSTube fandom. Might be worth it to make a separate page for the LPS aesthetic community at some point. Patchlamb (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for clarifying! I added a bit to say that the kidcore blogging overlaps with LPStube fandom, which I think is all it really needs. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Almost there~~ - In the intro, the term "kidcore" isn't explained or linked to an explanation, and it's confusing why full-motion videos would be referred to as "stop-motion". — PCCB (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes - Looks good now. — PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I think that after recent edits, the intro's looking great now! Also, I've made a stub for kidcore, so the red link's blue now. --SecurityBreach (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Brontë Fandom

Nominated by Erimia on May 13, 2021. As of this writing, it has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

An interesting article with a lot of fascinating historical information about an old and unusual fandom, as well as about the fannish activity of the authors themselves. -- Erimia (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Almost there: a couple of things would probably need changing for me, one I think we need to remove Charlotte Bronte quote at the top of the page, and two I think the intro needs to be tightened up slightly. Usually I complain about intros being too short, but this one seems to have information that feels like it is not summarizing the article, but that maybe should be it's own section in the body of the article, like the fact that the Bronte sisters were fannish themselves. Plus there also seems to be quite a lot of red links on the page -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes with the changes made by enchantedsleeper and others I am changing my vote to yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Almost: Yes I also think the intro should be refocused on the fandom, rather than the sister as fans in their own right. That info is interesting but belongs in a different section. I also think it could do with an update as the intro implies the bicentennial is in a future 2016.

You can take or leave my next suggestion; I'm just thinking out loud - with the Bronte sisters books out of copyright, is there discussions of pro fiction and its place within Bronte fandom which could be added to the page?? I'm thinking in particular of Wild Sargasso Sea, the Jane Eyre prequel with alt POV that was published in 1969, that is often cited by aca-fans. But I know there are lots of more recent examples. I'm just not sure if they relate to or are discussed by Bronte fandom... --Auntags (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Cool article. I didn't knew Fanlore had an article about it. I see people posting on tumblr a lot about Brontë works and adapted movies and it a bit of fresh air that showcases how broad fandom can be. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Not yet: It's very interesting, but it feels like two separate articles have been smooshed together. I suggest splitting it into a Person page (containing the Brontës' fannish creations, and most of their biographical info) and a Fandom page (focussed on the fandom around their works). I'd love to have one of those pages as a Featured Article! --Bikedancelaugheat (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I've split off the information about the sisters and their fan activity into a separate page, Brontë Sisters. I also moved the Works information over there, though I am on the fence about that since their works are the subject of fannish interest, but it also seems relevant to have on the Brontë Sisters page, and I didn't just want to duplicate it across both. Anyway, I think this should address some of the issues raised about this nomination.

I think the Brontë Fandom page is still a good candidate to be featured; the only major thing I'd say is missing is, as Auntags suggested, mentions of pro fiction transformative works, which I think deserve a mention in the Fanworks section. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I've included some mentions of major pro fiction spin-off works (including Wide Sargasso Sea), so I'm voting Yes on this! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Not Easily Conquered

Nominated by Kingstoken, on August 26, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags. I was blown away by the amount of fanworks inspired by this one series, and thought it might be worthy of being featured.

Yes: I meant to vote on this last night, but got distracted reading the fic xD --Auntags (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Yeah, it looks pretty good. Sounds interesting too. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Article looks good to me and having never heard of this series before it was an interesting read. — Eliadan (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes: A good, thorough page. I added a bit to the intro about the series being quoted widely and embedded a gif with one of the more famous quotes. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Poison Ivy/Harley Quinn

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC) on August 20, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags. I thought it might be nice to feature this iconic femslash duo.

Yes: The article looks good overall, though maybe some dates of when the ship first started to crop up amongst fans could be added to the intro to quickly show the longevity of the pairing if featured on the home page? — Eliadan (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Good point, I think the ship started back in the 90s, when Batman: The Animated Series came out, from what I've read online that is where the ship was born, and it was later expanded upon in the comics. I wasn't in the fandom back then, but I do remember watching the show and being like "Hello", they got your attention because they had great chemistry, and a female duo villain team was pretty rares back, unfortunately. -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I added a little to the fandom section about the ship beginning in the 90s -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes: An important ship - that fandom considered canon long before it actually went canon. I added some comics and fandom history, and tried to flesh out the intro. The one thing that is missing from this page is where the early online fans were - I couldn't find any info on harlivy fansites or dedicated archives, which is a pity. But it may just be a case that they're no longer with us. --Auntags (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Harley's Haven had a page about the ship, but not much in the way of fanworks, I'll see if I can dig around the other old batman fansites and see if I can find anything -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Looks good to me. Just added a quick update regarding the recent Batwoman casting for Poison Ivy and the shipping of her with Margot Robbie's Harley.

Yes: This is great, and the recent additions have really rounded it out! Love having a femslash ship to feature as well :3 --enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Tumblr Sexyman

Nominated by PictoChatCyberBully, on 31 August 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags.

Yes: The article seems filled out. I will admit I am a little confused and don't quite get it, because I've only ever heard this term used about Loki, so I had no idea about all the non-human stuff, but maybe others won't know either, so this could be informative -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes: This seems comprehensive, and is a great subject for a Featured Article :3 --enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I'm delighted there's an article about this, and it does seem really comprehensive! I think it'd get a lot of interest -- Chanterelle (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes: -- Auntags (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Accidental Warlord and His Pack

Nominated by greedy dancer on Sept 6, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. This is a massive verse which is one of the (the?) most popular stories/verses in The Witcher fandom at the moment, with dozens of related works. So many alternate povs & AUs of the story have been written that Warlord!Geralt is now a trope in itself.

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I find it absolutely fascinating that the author has never consumed any of the source material for this fandom. Their only experience of the Witcher came from reading other fics in the fandom. Could that be mentioned in the intro and the "IC or OOC" section moved up the page? --Auntags (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Auntags! Where would you suggest moving it up to? I considered it but couldn't decide on a logical place to put it lol - Greedy dancer (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm genuinely not sure, but I can start a talk page discussion and see if we get any suggestions!--Auntags (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Just want to say that I think the recent changes to structure are great! Thanks to all the editors involved. --Auntags (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes: A very good nomination - I was surprised and intrigued to learn about the author having no knowledge of canon. I updated some of the stats on the page and removed the links to individual chapters/instalments as I think this would get unwieldy with the growing number of works in the series. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Alice Jones (OUAT)

Nominated by OfMonstersAndWerewolves on August 17, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. First time nominating something here so we'll see how it goes for now, and it might give other perspectives as to what else could still be added.

Hesitant Yes: I hesitate because I usually like for the intros of featured articles to have a little more meat to them, however, I'm not exactly sure what to add to this intro to make it better -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote yes after the changes made to the introduction -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Almost: I like how fleshed-out the tropes section is, but agreed that the intro is a little light on information: perhaps a few words about the kind of representation provided and the types of fanworks created? Also the Fanfiction section of the Fanworks section is completely empty. -Greedy dancer (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Changing my vote after edits! Great intro IMO! -Greedy dancer (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Greedy dancer & Kingstoken - I've fleshed out the intro by adding in some context about the representation and a little bit on fanworks. I completely didn't realise I'd left the fanfiction bit empty so I've added a couple examples. What do you think? -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Intro looks a lot better -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Look great to me! -Greedy dancer (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes: This seems like a comprehensive page; I particularly like the well-formatted fanon section. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Everything looks really good and it's nice to get some lesser-known characters a little spotlight. flyingthesky (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. (And I'm glad to have been introduced to this article!) --Bikedancelaugheat (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Clarke Griffin/Lexa

Nominated by OfMonstersAndWerewolves on September 28, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I don't even go here, but it looks like a pretty decent page.

Yes from me, definitely notable and seems impressively thorough! --Greedy dancer (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Very comprehensive. I will try an see if I can find a couple of CC fanart pieces to add. The only thing I don't like is that we use a quote from another wiki for the canon section, but that is not a deal breaker -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes: This is a really excellent page. Very enjoyable read. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Such a detailed page on an important ship --Auntags (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Hatsune Miku

Nominated by mozaikmage on August 8, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Almost there: I would add a line or two to the introduction just to talk about the fandom and how fans interact with Hatsune Miku; I also think a gallery of some sample fanart would be a good nod to that aspect of fan creation. This will be a great one to feature! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Yes as the intro is more fleshed-out now and there is a wider array of fanworks on the page including a sample fanart gallery. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Almost: I agree with everything enchantedsleeper said, it would be nice to have more fanwork examples, and a section for "Common Tropes in Fanworks" or "Fanon" would be good, because fans have to make up much of her backstory and motivations, are there common themes or agreed upon traits in fanworks? -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Almost: I wonder if part of the Rise in Popularity section can be merged with the intro to expand that section? --Auntags (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I moved two sentences to the intro and added some references. I don't know enough to do more --Auntags (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Yes. Well done to all the editors who made additions --Auntags (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Almost: As someone unfamiliar with the concept/character, some of the intro is a little unclear (what's a voicebank? What's... a vocaloid? >.>) It might benefit from including a few clarifying words -Greedy dancer (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Yes --Greedy dancer (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added an explanatory note for voicebank. For vocaloid, I think the explanation in the second sentence should be enough ("She is the human avatar of a vocal synthesizer...") as adding anything else to that seemed redundant, but also people can click through to the wikilinked Vocaloid article if they want a more generalised explanation. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That's fair enough! :p Changed my vote! --Greedy dancer (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Student Prince

Nominated by Kingstoken, on October 3, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags. A famous fic in the Merlin fandom. Plus, I don't think we have featured anything from the Merlin fandom since 2019.

Yes Looks good to me! --Greedy dancer (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I padded the intro just a little bit. However, I do think the category for Merlin Vids should be removed from this page. --Auntags (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Love to see the classics make a comeback! - flyingthesky (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Slow Burn

Nominated by flyingthesky on 19 Oct 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and it's pretty reasonably comprehensive with no content flags! I keep thinking that I want to do more with it, but I don't really know what else I could add so I'm pretty sure that means it's time to nominate it, you know?

Yes from me, looks comprehensive, I like the discussion section! --Greedy dancer (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Only one concern, could we not use the annotated fanworks template for the example fanworks? it looks rather cluttered at the bottom of the page. This isn't a deal breaker for me, so if others want to keep this format I'm okay with it -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Great page! I actually don't mind the annotated fanworks template here, as its actually been used for annotations! But I will say it doesn't scale well on mobile. --Auntags (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Procrustean Petard

Nominated by Auntags on Oct 22, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags. It's a very early genderswap story that has been criticized but was very influential.

Yes: I found this a very interesting read and especially liked the fan commentary across the years to show the lasting impact of this work. --Eliadan (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Great piece of history of the treatment of gender in fandom. It was well-written even before, but after all the recent work on it, it has become even better -- Erimia (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

No Featherbed For Me

Nominated by Kingstoken, on August 24, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags. This is a tearjeker fic that seems quite famous among Arya, and Arya/Gendry, fans.

Not quite~~ - The page is organized and looks filled out, but the intro and synopsis sections could use some more of an overview of the plot, not just the author's teaser. What is the plot? What changes from canon? Why does this story make fans emotional? — PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. — PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Almost: There's a lot of good info there already, but I agree that there is an opportunity to add more about the *content* of the story itself: why is it so emotional? Maybe a section about the themes or tropes contained in the story would flesh it out? It might be a good sentence to add to the intro. (Other possible things to add to the intro: dates it was posted as a WIP?) -Greedy dancer (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Yes due to changes! --Greedy dancer (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Recent edits have made a huge difference to the page. Definitely worth featuring! - - Auntags (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Crown of Thorns Pod'rama

Nominated by Greedy dancer on Oct 19, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags.

I came across this one and was impressed by the large cast involved, and the scope of the finished project + commitment to documenting the process! I think the "recs and reviews" section could be fleshed out but it shouldn't be too much of a problem. --Greedy dancer (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes: It is very well done, but some of the information, especially in the premise section, feels more like it should be in an article about the fanfic series itself. Other than that it seems like a very comprehensive documentation of the project -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes: changed vote because of the changes made -- Kingstoken (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes: i agree with Kingstoken about the premise section, because i think it makes the page a little bit hard to parse? for a while into the article i thought that this project was conceived as a audio project, rather than a project put together for love of a fic, particularly because all the sections afterward are about a specific aspect of the project so "the premise" made it sound like the premise of the project itself and not the fic. i also think the page could do with some light restructuring, given that a lot of the sections are quite short and could be put together under one larger section called "the process" or something. it's a very good page, i think it just needs a tiny bit of cleanup. - flyingthesky (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yesy: Vote updated thanks to the changes made! - flyingthesky (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I moved most of the premise into the fanfic series article, hopefully that helps with the problem raised previously. This was such an interesting project to read about! Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the article for the fic and moving that info over it makes a lot more sense now -- Kingstoken (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Repod

Nominated by Auntags on 10 Nov 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

As someone pretty unfamiliar with podficing, I found this page fascinating.

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes --Greedy dancer (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes --aethel (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes - I agree with Auntags, it's a fascinating page and I greatly enjoyed reading it and learning about the back and forth over this issue! A good treatment of both the term and the practice. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Five Things

Nominated by memorizingthedigitsofpi on June 17, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. This was mentioned in a discussion about short fics on tumblr, and some users were unaware of it while others mentioned that they hadn't seen these types of fics in a long time. I'd love to spread awareness of this fic style and maybe try to help spawn a resurgence. :)

Almost: The intro seems rather scant, I think it needs to be filled out a little more. Also, for a trope that had cross fandom appeal the example fanwork section is very small. However, with a little work it could probably make a good featured article -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes changing vote to yes because of the improvements made -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I liked it and it seems concise and to the point.--Coconutcream99 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

:Maybe: I agree with Kingstoken that there is not much to the intro, though I'm really not sure what else could be added to it. The collection of example fics feels a little random - are these notable works or just examples that editors happened to add? If there was a way to collect together some early examples, followed by some interesting subversions of the form (or early examples of new "types", like Five Times instead of Five Things) I think that would add some really interesting depth to the page.

I've also noticed the same thing that pi noted in the nomination, namely that these types of fics aren't as prevalent as they used to be - could that be reflected in the page somehow? I will try and hunt down some fan comments that might have observations on this. It would be interesting to see if there is any meta on these fics as well. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Finally updating my own vote to a Yes - I wound up going down a real rabbit hole with this one once I started making edits to the page! I realised that the timelines on the page for the fic's rise to popularity and evolution were off, so I wound up updating a lot of sections. While I realise it doesn't need to be perfect, I wanted to at least make sure none of the sections contradicted one another. Anyway, I'm very happy with this now and with the additions to the intro and fic examples (I also think it's not the case that these fics are less common now; I agree with Greedy dancer that it may just be relative to the volume of fics now, plus perhaps the novelty of them wears off as you spend more time in fandom ;D) --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

:Maybe: I took at stab at fleshing out the intro & added a "discussion" section -- what do you think? As for the popularity, I would have agreed with the idea that I used to see more of them Before, but then I looked at the AO3 tag and about half of the fics using the tag were posted pre-2018, and half after. I'm guessing the number of total fics posted to the archive exploded in those years, so the trope is less popular relatively speaking? -Greedy dancer (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes I'm happy with how things stand --Greedy dancer (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Lover In Low Light

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

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

Yes: I think the fact that this became a published novel adds another level of interest that makes it more than just a Clexa fic article. --Eliadan (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes: A well-fleshed-out article and an interesting read. We have had what feels like a fair amount of fanwork Featured Articles lately which concerns me a little more than the recent-ness of featuring Clexa, but I agree with Eliadan that the fact it was republished as profic makes it interesting. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I love hearing about novels made by filing of the serial numbers, this looks like it could be interesting to feature. Patchlamb (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Star Trek: Tik Tok

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

Yes: Had never heard of this fanvid so it was a fun read and even better watch. I like the addition of media comments with the reactions as well to show the impact. --Eliadan (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Never seen this fanvid before and greatly enjoyed it xD (It also earwormed me for an entire day 😂) I added to the intro, though I think a bit more wouldn't hurt, but it will work as is. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes: A short, simple article, one with lots of reactions and reviews. I saw this vid myself a few years back, I think it would make a fun featured article. Patchlamb (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Great fun to watch, and a decent lot of reaction posts. Minor point: aren't two of them the same thing repeated? Greer Watson (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. I removed the duplicate one ;) --enchantedsleeper (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Stilinski Twins

Nominated by Kingstoken on December 6, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags.

This was a well known trope in Teen Wolf fandom for awhile, so I thought it might be fun to feature -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes --Greedy dancer (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I remember this trope and I think (?) it's been a while since we featured a Teen Wolf page so I'm all for it. - flyingthesky (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Last Teen Wolf featured article was back in the summer, so I think there has been a enough time between them. -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Does a good job of going into the origins of the trope, which I like but had never known when it began. -- Eliadan (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes --Auntags (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

SlashFic Hall of Shame

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on 6 December, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags.

A comprehensive article and one that touches on some perennial fandom hot topics about concrit and feedback in general. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hesitant yes: I like the page overall, but find the "Reactions" section unwieldy due to the sheer volume of quotes -- could they be maybe organised into sub-categories? --Greedy dancer (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have an idea about how to rearrange the quotes by topic while also preserving a sense of the chronology, but I would want to get some input on this before going in and reorganising, so I'm going to propose it on the Talk page and refer back to this discussion. I think we can approve the article, however, as it's not a serious issue with the page, but I agree it can still be improved upon. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Although I do agree that breaking up the quotes section would be good, if someone wanted to, it's not really a dealbreaker for me. Quote sections just kind of get like that in my experience. - flyingthesky (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think its okay to leave the comments organised by year, unless someone has time and energy to reorganise them --Auntags (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Rejected nominations

Highlander

Nominated by WhatAreFrogs? on September 27, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and no content flags.

There are a lot of articles about the Highlander fandom and the article is decent.

Hesitant yes: I think this would be a good featured article but the intro would need to be fleshed out before it can be featured. --Auntags (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes: It seems like the article is twice covering canon details for the TV Series, once in the synopsis section and once again in the TV universe section, could we maybe combine these, and maybe tighten up the canon sections in general? Unless it is details that directly effect fandom and fanon -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:57, 9 October 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.

/r/arrow

Nominated by error cascade on October 27, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

I found the article personally interesting and I think featuring something that could fall under the broad umbrella of Fandom on Reddit would be nice.

Hestitent Yes It seems the longest of our reddits articles, so why not, although it is really short for a featured article. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe: I'm not sure because most of the article is about their anti-ship views, and more must have been discussed on subreddit than that, especially in the beginning, although perhaps I'm wrong, I'm not in this fandom, so I don't this subreddit's history -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe: There's a recent post on the sub that's in support of S4 and most of the comments on it are positive to neutral. Another one also has a lot of discussion about S4 and some of it is negative, but apparently S6 is their new punching bag? Plus there's a couple of recent AMAs that should probably be highlighted. - flyingthesky (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Not yet: This issue is that Reddit is not a very shipping friendly space and fandom subreddits get completely different types of fans that you'd find on Tumblr. I do feel like this page is missing that POV. There's this rant and its comments which suggest folks on this subreddit were annoyed with the general direction of the show and departure from comics canon, and Olicity was at the centre of all that. I do like the idea of highlighting AMAs. We could also link to the episode discussions page, and r/arrow have a discord too. --Auntags (talk) 23:53, 16 November 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.

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)

Rejected: Removing this as the nominations process has raised a number of things that need addressing, and right now the article isn't actively being worked on. Will transfer these comments to the Talk page to guide future edits.

Racefail '09

Nominated by memorizingthedigitsofpi on June 27, 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I was looking at the page prior to making a graphic for it and I was shocked that it doesn't appear to have been featured already. Excellent sourcing and commentary and always a relevant topic for fandom.

So close: The only issue I can see with this page is that there's a lot of citation needed flags. These would need to be resolved before the page is featured. I'll see if I can dig some references up!--Auntags (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe: Racefail was nominated previously in 2019, check Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations/Archive (2019), and I'm not sure all the issues have been addressed since then -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Good catch!! I'll summarize the points raised from previous nom here so editors can be aware:

1. Citations needed, and citation needed flags were added during previous nomination in 2018
2. In the How it began section, the intro may need a rewrite
3. It is a sensitive topic which may upset people (IMO I do think this is more of an issue for Fanlore's social media when they're promoting the featured article - but we may want to add more detail to the intro to forewarn folks) --Auntags (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Rejected: It's been more than three months since the nomination, and the page still needs edits to address the concerns raised during the nominations process, and right now the article isn't being actively worked on. The suggestions will be moved to the Talk page to help future editors.

Slanted Fedora

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

Almost: the article seems comprehensive, but the the into is not very good for a featured article, it would need to be reworded or fleshed out a bit more, because currently is it just a couple of line and a quote that is dong most of the work. -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe: There's a lot of potential for an interesting article here, but I think it needs more to it than just quotations. While quotes are fine and useful, this page is almost purely a series of quotations and I would personally find it a bit easier to read with some summaries and a bit of editorialising guiding me through them. What are these specific quotes intended to show? Some of the Con Report quotes are also extremely long and I think could benefit from some cherry-picking of relevant details about the con, rather than say, this one fan saying hello to their friend.

I'm also not really getting a sense of the big picture from this page. Was this a popular con? It seems like there were quite a few negative views, but the con ran for eight years? What exactly made the con distinctive? The quote in the intro gets at it a bit, but the Mission Statement section left me at sea because I can't actually tell what the con's mission is from the quotes (which are quite meandering). Not the fault of the page, of course, but again it seems like an area where some explanatory sentences would be helpful. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Almost; +1 to the arguments above. -Greedy dancer (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Rejected: The nomination has been up for more than three months and still needs work to address the suggested edits.

Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers

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

Yes: I wish the intro was more fleshed out, but the article itself is very well done and seems very comprehensive -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

What I've noticed with Featured Article intros that seem lacking (which is also true of the Alice Jones nomination above) is that they tend to lack a summary of fannish interaction. There would definitely need to be more to the intro here in order for it to go on the front page, and what I would add is a few lines about the fandom and what makes it distinctive. There's definitely plenty of info on the page (more than I've had time to digest yet!) so a paragraph or two encapsulating that would round out the intro. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly good intros are needed for the front page, but I do know it can be very hard to make a good intro for a character or pairing article -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reason the intro couldn't be "padded" with a short summary of the fandom happenings? -Greedy dancer (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. That's what I think it's missing; it just needs someone to add that summary --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Gave it my best shot! --Greedy dancer (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hesitant yes: Having had a chance to closely read more of this very thorough article, I'm definitely impressed by its comprehensiveness, but I have concerns about PPOV. The article was almost entirely written by a single fan who is definitely a community insider, which is great in terms of first-hand knowledge, but gives every part of the article a distinct pro-"Rangerphiles" slant. For example the way that the article defends the conservative rules of the forum and its ban on discussing "homosexuality" and "trans-genderism" is very "insider" and lacks alternate perspectives; contrast this with the fact that the introduction used to mention the controversy up front before it was rewritten.

I think these things can be mitigated to an extent (e.g. reflecting alternate perspectives on the fandom in the intro, rephrasing some wording to improve PPOV, potentially finding fan comments reflecting on the fandom that do not come from Rangerphiles), but my concern is that due to the long length of the article it will take a lot of work to meaningfully shift its perspective towards reflecting more diverse viewpoints on the fandom. However it is very interesting and thorough and so I don't want to say we shouldn't feature it, but I wanted to flag my concerns. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Not Yet: After a closer look at the body of the article, I agree with Kingstoken's PPOV concerns about justification of conservative positions. I don't think the article should be featured until they've been addressed. --Greedy dancer (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Not Yet: I've attempted to edit some parts of the article so at least someone else has eyes on it, but I'm afraid I'm not well enough into this fandom to be able to provide any meaningful PPOV. I also don't want to nitpick since it's such a large and thoroughly educating article, but there are a few tidbits that confused me and could need more thought. For example, the part about the Acorn Cafe says it was both started in 1998 and 2000 at the same time. Perhaps it meant it was started in 1998 by someone else, then taken over by Dr. Indy in 2000? Little things like that being reviewed and made more clear could also be helpful. Patchlamb (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Rejected: The nomination has been up for more than three months, and there needs to be more work done to address the PPOV concerns raised during the nominations process.