Talk:Stucky (fandom)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that there was a campaign to give Captain America a boyfriend? Source: Time, Washington Post
  • ALT1:... that a fan campaign to give Captain America a boyfriend was widely covered by mainstream media outlets? Source: Associated Press, Time, Washington Post
  • ALT2:... that a fan campaign to give Captain America a boyfriend has been cited as an example of how social media has altered the dynamic between creators and audiences? Source: Hollywood Reporter
  • ALT3:... that fans of Stucky – the ship name for Captain America and Bucky Barnes – have used George Chauncey's Gay New York to accurately incorporate aspects of pre-war gay culture in New York City into their fan works? Source: "A Hollywood of Our Own: Media Fandom as Female Artworld" (cited in article), The Mary Sue

• Reviewed: Yūki Yamato
• Comment: I like the punchiness of ALT0, but I included alternate hooks with detail/specificity if it's too light.

Created/expanded by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC).

•  Reviewing... DTM (talk)

Nominated within time and long enough. Copyvio seems ok, earwigs copyvio mainly throws up quotes. QPQ done. Articles looks well referenced and within policy. Hooks are cited inline and referenced.

• ALT 0 is a good one, as Morgan695 has pointed out.
• I would let ALT1 be over the subjectivity of widely covered.
• ALT 2 is also a nice one.
• ALT3 has 212 characters, more than the suggested "about 200".

Morgan695, please just let me know if you still want to go with ALT1, and if you could shorten ALT3 a little bit. DTM (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: I think ALT0 is still a solid hook, but I will leave it to whoever promotes the nomination. Alternate below. Morgan695 (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

ALT3a:... that fans of Stucky – the ship name for Captain America and Bucky Barnes – have used George Chauncey's Gay New York to incorporate aspects of pre-war gay culture in New York City into their fan works? Source: "A Hollywood of Our Own: Media Fandom as Female Artworld" (cited in article), The Mary Sue

gtg with preference for ALT0. DTM (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: I struck ALT3 since it is over 200 characters and thus ineligible for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stucky (fandom)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bobamnertiopsis (talk · contribs) 17:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this one! I think I tidied the references on this one a while ago when it was up for DYK but haven't done any substantive editing to it other than that. Excited to dive in! —Collin^{t c} 17:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

This article is in great shape and a lot of work has clearly been put into it.

• 1a: Prose is easy to read and does an excellent job combining sources in a natural way. There are two places I'd like clarifications:

• There are several instances where it's unclear what type of work (book, comic book, film, etc.) is being referenced; would you mind specifying? (I'm looking at Captain America: White and Black Widow in the Response section, and Gay New York in Analysis and impact but there may be a few other instances where it's ambiguous.)
• In #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend, it's not immediately obvious that Marvel is a Disney-owned property; would you mind specifying this either with a note or in the text somehow?

• 1b: Great lead summary! All other required MoS elements complied with.
• 2a: Strong reflist with consistent ref style.
• 2b: Much higher than GA-standard attribution. Great work. Tumblr statistics come from Tumblr proper and AO3 source directly sources an AO3 statistic so no qualms with those.
• 2c: No original research concerns.
• 2d: Direct quotation appears to be solely quoted and attributed, no other close paraphrasing/copyvio concerns noted.
• 3a: Sufficiently broad.
• 3b: The only concern I have here is the inclusion of the {{tweet}} template which does not add meaningful information to the article not already covered by the preceding sentence explaining that the user made that tweet. Everything else is appropriately focused.
• 4: No neutrality issues.
• 5: Stable.
• 6a: File:Gwenpool Stucky Panel.png is FU and appropriately tagged. Evans and Stan images are freely licensed and attributed on their pages.
• 6b: Pics definitely relevant! I appreciate there being a source referencing the Gwenpool panels to justify their inclusion in the article.

All in all, this is very close to GA status and just needs a few touches to get there. Thanks for your patience waiting for this review. I'll give you a week although feel free to ping me whenever! Kindly —Collin^{t c} 18:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bobamnertiopsis: Hi, thanks for your review. Issues have been resolved. Morgan695 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! This is a Good Article! —Collin^{t c} 23:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"Achilles and Patroclus"

The article compares Bucky and Steve to those two to show how their relationship is platonic, but the article on Achilles and Patroclus's relationship says in the first paragraph that they were often portrayed as lovers. I don't think they're a good example. Unfortunately, I don't have an account to edit this semi-protected article myself. 129.101.212.228 (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The article mentions Achilles and Patroclus because there are two critics that make that comparison. Both sources that make the comparison are identified at the end of the sentence. Wikipedia derives its content from third-party reliable sources, so it reflects what critics say, even if we as readers can think of better examples. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Surprisingly good to see this on the main page

Props for your efforts User:Morgan695+reviewers+other editors! 209.166.108.199 (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is this on Wikipedia?

Stupid question, I know, but doesn't this belong on a Wikia fandom page and not Wikipedia itself? What is the justification for putting this on the main site? I understand someone put a lot of effort into it and should be commended for doing so (good job, you!), but I'm not convinced it has any academic relevance. Though, I assume it meets all relevant Wikipedia criteria, as it would not have been promoted otherwise. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Your last sentence is correct, and this clearly meets WP:GNG. I agree that the author(s) did a good job. Of course, this is a truly exceptional "ship" in the coverage it got; the vast majority do indeed not belong on Wikipedia. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)