Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/He-Man as a gay icon/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2022 [1].

He-Man as a gay icon edit

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... He-Man, the Strongest Man in the Universe! But not quite. Specifically, it is about how He-Man has often been analysed and interpreted as being a gay man, with various critics, scholars, and publications pointing out how homoerotic his character is; for a variety of reasons. It is likely for these reasons, as well as a few others, that He-Man has also ended up amassing a substantial gay following, becoming a rare gay icon that isn't a female celebrity. While his sister She-Ra was depicted as openly lesbian in Netflix's reboot, the jury's still out on He-Man himself, although Mattel doesn't seem particularly opposed to it.

I think this might be the first article of its kind—it's definitely the first "XXX as a gay icon" article that is about a male or fictional figure—so hopefully it can become a featured article and possibly pave the way for other similar articles in the future. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Kavyansh; suggesting to withdraw edit

I have not taken a look at the entire article, but few fundamentally basic issues from a quick read:

See MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID for lead's first sentence
Single page numbers usually take just 'p.'; we have lots of 'pp.' for single page numbers here.
The prose is not fully up-to FA standards. Few examples:
- "The status of He-Man as a gay icon and application of queer theory to his character dates back decades." — how many decades back? shouldn't we directly mention the year or time-period?
- "The queer reading of He-Man's character, particularly his relationship with Skeletor, has been referenced in other media as well as being utilized in advertisement and for charity." — what is "other media"?
- "Regarding the fascination with the male physique and attention given to He-Man's body in the franchise, Cornelius describes this as reminiscent of the Castro clones and gay clone culture that prevailed in the United States around the same period the original cartoon aired."
- "Given the time period of the show's original airing, it's believed its gay subtext was either unintentional or the result of queer coding." — who believes that?
- "with Cornelius proclaiming that He-Man’s “clothing and physique are designed to relay a message that otherwise can not be sent”."
- "The event was inspired by Mason's childhood love for the He-Man franchise and Skeletor was one of his personal heroes, and attracted the attention of fashion designers Helmut Lang and Marc Jacobs."
Sources:
- Suggesting to hyphenated ISBNs
- What makes the following "highest quality reliable sources", required by the FA criteria?
  - Comic Book Resources
  - Wired
  - IGN — WP:IGN specifically states that IGN's blogs should be handled with WP:RSBLOG. WP:RSBLOG states that "[blogs] may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process". Is the author, Kyle Watson, a professional in this field?
  - PR Newswire — WP:PRNEWSWIRE stated that PR Newswire is generally unreliable.

Nice work has been done, but I am not confident that FA criteria is met, so I am Opposing and suggesting to withdraw the nominating. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Also noticed that the article just last month failed the GA review: Talk:He-Man as a gay icon/GA1. Pinging the reviewer—@GhostRiver. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from GhostRiver edit

The most explicit reason why I failed this article during the GA nomination process, as opposed to placing it on hold with detailed comments, is in the quality of sourcing. Namely, I had serious concerns with the use of ironic, catty, clickbaity articles such as 25 Cartoon Characters Who Should Just Come Out Already or 18 Childhood Cartoon Characters Who Were Totally Queer. Both of those sources are still incorporated into the article; the only one I explicitly critiqued that has been removed is one that was from a homophobic bait website. I'm a bit disappointed that this was taken to FA without a serious overhaul based on my GAN commentary, or at least without another good article nomination first. — Ghost River 16:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If your main issue is with the sourcing, then why not just do the most simple thing and do a source review? I cannot know what your subjective opinion of a good or bad review is. Just because you take issue with one source and think it's "catty" or whatever, doesn't mean everyone else will. I don't know, maybe you skimmed through them and thought they weren't adequate enough, it's likely someone else will think they're appropriate. Unless you provide a listing of which sources you have an issue with and why, there's nothing I can do about them. And if you wanted to, you could have provided actual, thorough assistance either during the first GAN, rather than giving up, or the second one. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be my final comment on the FAC itself, as it is waiting to be archived. But I feel as if I need to respond to some points. I did not conduct a source review in full here because it would be redundant to the comments I left on the good article nomination. I did not take issue with one source, I explicitly mentioned two here that stood out to me, and Kavyansh.Singh mentioned others. I am unsure where you get the impression that it's likely someone else would find those sources appropriate, considering, as I said, Kavyansh.Singh already highlighted several areas in which the best available sourcing was questionable. To what I take particular offense is the idea that I only skimmed through the articles in question, as if Prince Adam isn't really fooling anyone with those lavender yoga pants, furry underwear and tight shirt will somehow become a serious piece of scholarly work the harder I look. I did, in fact, include a list of sources I did not find reputable in the GAN, and I was met with resistance, followed by silence after I proposed an example of what I considered a reliable source on what makes (admittedly another individual, but) someone a gay icon. Based on the hostility I received after the first nomination, in conjunction with the fact that I have an occupation and life outside of Wikipedia, including a number of health issues of which others on this website are aware, I felt no strong compulsion to conduct an additional review, particularly when so few of my comments had been initially addressed.

To conclude: I am a volunteer conducting a volunteer service. It is within my rights to fail a good article nomination if the article in question is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria. I mentioned several citations with which I took issue, including the two mentioned in this FAC above, and highlighted specific phrases that gave me pause. The volatile responses I have received both here and at the GAN make me unwilling to give this article the most thorough review that I can. Why would I put energy into providing commentary that will only be met with gruff refusals?

In any case, the point is moot, as it appears you have moved this article from mainspace to a redirect. I only hope that you can clear your head and think about the points raised not just by me but by the previous opposition. — Ghost River 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I did, in fact, include a list of sources I did not find reputable in the GAN, and I was met with resistance, followed by silence after I proposed an example of what I considered a reliable source on what makes (admittedly another individual, but) someone a gay icon". Oh, give me a fucking break. You didn't even wait one goddamn day to give me time to improve any of that shit before you decided to immediately fail the good article nomination. Maybe I'd have been more receptive to your commentary if you hadn't failed the review barely an hour after you started it, which clearly indicated that you didn't care all that much about helping me or the article be improved.

Coordinator comment edit

This article is in need of further work to prepare it for an FAC noination, so I am archiving it to allow this to be done. I would recommend PR. The usual two week break will apply.

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting to archived: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.