Wikipedia:Peer review/Fan fiction/archive1

Fan fiction[edit]

Hello! There have been many improvements to this page, but I think the Legal Issues section in particular might still need some help, even if the information is accurate, it's still so very... LONG.

I was hoping to get this article up to snuff enough to nom it and maybe win it Featured Article status, and was wondering whether or not the clean up tag should be removed, so I decided to nominate it for a peer review.

Please take a look and chime in! :) Runa27 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random comments:

WP:LEAD needs expanded.
Needs lots of citations. See what research you can do on the topic, and let that determine the content.
A ton of weasel words; in the first section alone, "Many believe that", "Some people have sought", and "Some point to works". The easiest way is simply to get rid of these sentences; the best way is to find out who believes, who has sought, and who points to works.
- Also, try to avoid speculation. You suggest that "out of character" originates from online roleplay, but there are much earlier uses of the phrase: Basil Rathbone's autobiography is titled "In and out of character".
After that it's a somewhat disorganized list of sub-types and terms. You might divide the genres into those dealing with relationships, those dealing with universes, and those that have a particular style.
- Is there any real reason the items in each list are in the order they are? If not, they should be in alphabetical order.

That is a good point; I'll go alphabetize them right now. :) Runa27 04:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note some of the terms also have their own articles; e.g. Canon (fiction).
Basically all the legal stuff needs references badly. Wikipedia is not a lawyer, so pointing to a lawyer who knows and has written about fanfiction as a legal concept is almost required.

That's all I can think of for now. Basically, do some research, find some good sources. Hope that helps. Nifboy 07:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I tried to repair the legal section, but so far all I've been able to do it make some of the language here and there less redundant or superfluous, and correct some information on Japanese copyright law (fanfiction is not "totally legal" there, it's just generally tolerated and often encouraged). Somebody with legal sources and knowledge really needs to take a crack at it. I especially liked your suggestion to sub-divide the Subgenres section, because that would I think definitely organize it a bit better, which this page probably desperately needs! Runa27 23:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some reorganizing, at least. What do you think about it now? I have also put out a call for more sources and citations in the articles's Talk page. Runa27 01:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lack of references is the article's biggest problem at the moment. I just read the Legal Issues In The U.S. and Abroad section and almost nothing is referenced there. Have a look at WP:CITE. There's also original research ("J. K. Rowling (or, perhaps more likely, from her attorneys)." for example) which should be avoided and all the weasel words Nifboy already mentioned. And you should remove capitalisations in headings as well as correct some other style issues (titles aren't always in italics in the article). And certain words are overlinked (Star Trek, for example, is linked 6 times in the article). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Legal Issues section has some, er, issues. I'm thinking of going through the "Wikipedian Lawyers" category and inviting as many as possible to take a look at that section. I also noticed Star Trek was linked a lot - seeing as the series' fandom was the first to use the term "fan fiction", it's hardly surprising, but switching a few titles out might not be a bad idea. Runa27 04:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No references. No pictures. Not good.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm searching out refs now. As for "pictures" - the phenomenon is almost purely textual. Exactly what kind of "picture" could we add? If you have any ideas, do please let me know, though.Runa27 04:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An additional suggestion: Aside from the legal section, the majority of the article is a summary of its various sub-articles. While it would take longer to get to FA, you may try a bottom-up approach: Research and bring up the various sub-articles, and references et al can naturally be re-used in the main fanfiction article. Nifboy 23:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a good point! I've already been trying to polish up the Mary Sue page. Runa27 04:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Further update) The added attributes of Mary Sues is completely unsourced. My suggestion would be to leave it out until you can source it. Nifboy 06:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those were, I think, mostly already mentioned in the article on Mary Sue (I think a combination of common observation and common complaints about "Mary Sues" and many fan essays on the phenomenon were the main sources for those traits, but they ARE verifiably traits - at least, in the Mary Sue article they were, last I looked - that are VERY frequently associated with the concept of "Mary Sue". It's actually quite likely that by now, there's better sources for it, if there weren't already, that could be added in. I'll look in on it in coming weeks). They were unnecesary details that seemed to be addequetely covered in the term's main article, so I removed them from this one. Also have been trimming a few other things, such as fanon (the massive "Ni Var" reference, while interesting, was a bit much and also had the possibility of confusing the reader as to what fanon is or is not; I changed it to a much shorter example of a common fanon cliche from Harry Potter fanfic).

I still am scared to even touch the Legal Issues section. :P I was thinking - is there already a WikiProject for legal citation/research/verifications or for improving explanations of legal matters? Because no way can fan fiction be the only article needing help regarding related legal issues! Off the top of my head, fan art, derivitive work, public domain, various authors' pages fan film, and machinema probably all have complex legal issues to cover or at least refer to. Hmmm... if there isn't one already, I smell a WikiProject suggestion! ;) Runa27 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Law. Nifboy 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thank you, Nifboy! :D That's just the kind of Wikiproject I was looking for! I don't have the time to look at those sources just yet, but thank you very much for digging them up; I'll check them out as soon as I can. Runa27 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]