Talk:Shipping discourse/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. ZKang123 (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 04:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vortex3427 (talk · contribs) 11:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vortex3427: Pinging to check in! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for a second opinion here, due to reviewer absence and some revisions made since the review has been open. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got here from WP:DISCORD. @Generalissima:

Background
The term shipping [...] emerged [...] to refer to fans That's "shippers". Needs to be rephrased "to refer to the fan practice" etc.
- Ah yeah, good point. - G
Link fandom.
- Done. -G
For someone who's never heard of shipping before, it'd be good to specify that after the X-Files fandom it was used in a more general sense because the text doesn't point out the leap yet.
- Done. -G
period fanfiction websites alternatively alligned with either What does period mean? Contemporary? Does alternatively need to be there, and maybe "aligned with both" instead.
- Contemporary, but that's better here. And tweaked phrasing. -G
Many ~~fans of particular pieces of media~~ Shippers.
- Fair enough. - G
Link canon to Canon (fiction).
- Oh, didn't realize that existed. -G
Due to the intensity of emotional attachment to these pairings, Because of this,
- Oh yeah, I kinda already say that in the previous sentence. Ty. -G
Can you elaborate on what fandom spaces means, exactly? I know the source doesn't really say, but it does describe Tumblr as an important fandom space
- I feel like that doesn't need extra context to be understood to someone without context: I mention both fansites and large scale social media networks used by fans. Nevertheless, I tweaked the phrasing a little bit to make this more clear. - G
The source doesn't say The "destruction of LiveJournal" but The destruction of LiveJournal communities, so it changes the meaning a little bit. Maybe just go with "This led to"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WritingAboutCreepypastas (talk • contribs) 14:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to quote it more directly. - G

Sorry to butt in, but there is a {{citation needed}} and {{how}} tag on the page. These should be fixed before any possible GA promotion. In addition, the text was changed significantly (by another user) since the review started, so this may have to be taken into account too. Epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: @Vortex3427: I resolved both of these tags; the changes to the article are prose fixes though, so yeah we'll have to go back through that. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vortex3427: Just checking in. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima, please note that Vortex3427 may have opened the review, but has yet to post any actual review; the previous set of requests were by first-time GA reviewer WritingAboutCreepypastas. Vortex3427, if you aren't planning to return soon to conduct your GA review, it would be courteous to let Generalissima know that, so a new reviewer can formally be found. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset Ope. I didn't actually realize that, my apologies! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(driveby comment) @BlueMoonset, WAC is the (poorly disclosed) LEGITSOCK of Vortex, per the small text on the bottom of the former's userpage. Queen of ♡ | Speak 01:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ZKang123 review[edit]

Rather interesting article to be on Wikipedia. Given I write fanfiction myself, let me look over.

Very well-written for such a topic on fandom culture, with adequate sourcing to academic commentary. Just a couple of proposed edits:

"carefully distributed only within small cliques interested in the work." – "...interested in such works"
- Done. - G
"allowed the free spread of work" – "allowed free distribution of works"
- Done. -G
"the large websites still forced works" – "these websites..."
- Done. - G
Might also add a news report of the Tumblr nsfw ban.
- I would like to, but none of the sources actually made an explicit connection to this, so I figure it could fall into synthy territory. - G
"Antis have been described as "hybrids that exhibit traits of fans, anti-fans and anti-shippers."" – by who? The author of the source cited?
- Attributed quote in-text. - G
"Inverted from anti-shipper" – would say "On the other hand"
- This is an etymological description; I made this more clear. -G
Might remove "form a broad opposition to antis"
"a 2013 survey revealed that only 38% of AO3 users were heterosexual, with more nonbinary users than men." – is it also possible to directly cite this 2013 survey in the article?
- The findings of the survey were posted on Tumblr, so I feel it's best to just stick to the academic source analyzing it. - G
"has been described as a means to attack pro-shippers" – described by who?
- Attributed. - G
I suggest having adequate in-text attribution when directly quoting academic material.
- Attributed or paraphrased direct quotes. -G

I think that's all for my side. Earwig shows no copyvio issues beyond lifted quotes. Putting GAN on hold.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Okie-dokie artichokie. I think that's all of it! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: I don't think you're really supposed to put a review that someone else has been working on on hold? Elli (talk | contribs) 04:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: oh shoot, because on the WP Discord Generalissima was asking for a second opinion and hence I offered my views. However, if the other reviewer has other comments, then eh... Shoot...--ZKang123 (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Ah, no worries in that case. If it was requested it's fine. Sorry for butting in. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123 @Elli not on hold. 2nd opinion and i put it there. alls good Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright everything is adequately addressed. Passed. --ZKang123 (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.