Talk:Furry fandom/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

--Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

GA - Adjustment per review
First off, thank you for your efforts, Novil Ariandis. Further comments on your review would be appreciated.

Below will be the possible improvements or questions regarding the article improvement as outlined by GA review. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Fictional work celebrated" - inappropriate wording.

What do fans do with their subject of liking anyway?


 * GR: Well, according to xkcd, it's a fetish. ;-) But perhaps "appreciated"?


 * Heh, yeah. "appreciated" sounds a bit too ambiguous though.. I really can't find anything concerning what the heck do fans do with their interests. Best description we have is cited in the lead, "devotion to". --Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are way too many very short paragraphs with only one, two or three sentences.

How can we avoid this without meshing together vastly different subject data in one paragraph?


 * GR: Rather than doing that, expand each paragraph with relevant related information. The article can always get bigger. It will have to grow eventually, might as well get closer to "comprehensive" now.


 * Well, that's the problem - we only have sources on so much things. Maybe I'm just not too good at finding them though. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Feedback: Sorry, but there does no acceptable excuse exist to not find a way to connect them better to create a better reading flow. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently, small paragraphs are used to solve this problem - there's just too much data of vastly different quality in one place. Ideally, this is solved by extending the article like GreenReaper suggested.


 * Anyone have ideas about what to do with this? --Draco 2k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead does not provide a comprehensive overview over the main aspects of the article and thus violates WP:LEAD.

Feedback needed: Do we need to present all six different aspects in the lead?


 * No (see below) --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * GR: This is one area we can perhaps mishmash different areas in one paragraph, but if done it needs to be done so that the transition is reasonable. I've had practice at that; if people want to write it as big as they deem necessary to get everything in, I can trim it down. ;-)


 * Short summaries of other important information regarding the furry fandom in the various chapters of the article should be added.

Feedback needed: What important information?


 * Please have a look at LEAD. The lead should contain the most important aspects of the main body of the article. Information like "In the past, the media has often focused on the sexual component of the furry fandom. After claims that these portrayals are misconceptions by furry fans, a more balanced coverage has recently been established." I just came up with this and it is probably not a very good summary of the "Media" chapter (nor "good" prose), but it should indicate what sort of information the lead should contain. Writing a short lead which covers all important parts of the article is VERY difficult! However, nobody expects wonders in a "Good article". --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "live shows such as Rapid T. Rabbit and Friends and" external link in the prose.

Propose link removal.


 * Converted external link to web reference. Italised a few titles while at it. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * GR: Why not replace with internal link?


 * If we have one, please do. A red link doesn't seem appropriate. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We do. Replaced. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "For example, Further Confusion has raised more than $62,000 (USD) for various charitable beneficiaries throughout its nine-year history,[38] and Anthrocon has donated more than $66,000 (USD) to animal-related charities since 1997.[39] In September 2004, Mephit Furmeet raised more than $15,000 for an organization known as Tiger Haven.[40]" redundant information.

Feedback needed: How is this redundant?


 * GR: We can perhaps give an (updated) yearly summary figure for 2007. That year is definitely over $60,000, while if we want to mention FC/AAE (the largest donor) it is now at a cumulative total of over $100,000. Other than that, throw it all in footnotes? More can perhaps be justified if the article as a whole is larger, but most information about convention fundraising belongs in furry convention.


 * Maybe just move the trivia to furry convention altogether? Can we do that? --Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That would work too, though I suspect it is already covered. Might need updating though. GreenReaper (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This article seems to go into lots of detail about this - looks like Furry convention has this covered a lot better. I'm removing most of the trivia and replacing it with the other article's summary. Removed part below. --Draco 2k (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Such conventions feature auctions or fund-raising events, with the proceeds often donated to an animal-related charity. For example, Further Confusion has raised more than $62,000 (USD) for various charitable beneficiaries throughout its nine-year history, and Anthrocon has donated more than $66,000 (USD) to animal-related charities since 1997. In September 2004, Mephit Furmeet raised more than $15,000 for an organization known as Tiger Haven."

Deleted excerpt above could be incorporated into the Furry convention article. This article could also make use of some stuff from it.

I'm incredibly tempted to round down the "over 9,900" attendees to the fourth digit. --Draco 2k (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of italic in titles like Second Life and and Everquest II is inconsistent.

Feedback needed: "Inconsistent" in what sense?


 * GR: In that one uses italics and one does not. SL and Furcadia both use italics in the their titles, and video game has italics throughout. I'd feel more comfortable with them used throughout, like we'd do for Watership Down or any other title of a work.


 * I've italised a bunch of titles in the section. Could someone please check if I've done correctly? Also, rest of the article could use the same treatment. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Revised the use of italics throughout the article - hopefully it's the right way to do this. Reworded Media section a bit while at it. Also removed seemingly redundant trivia - removed text below. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Anthrocon brings an estimated $3 million to the Pittsburgh economy, and plans to return to the city every year "for the foreseeable future"."


 * The following links in the references do not work: http://ranea.org/falf/articles/fanzines.html [14], http://vcl.com/ [19], http://kdka.com/local/local_story_167193226.html [36], http://www.arclight.net/~yarf/YARF_Chronology.html[8] and http://www.thecornernews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=AUC/MGArticle/AUC_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137836454751 [55].

Feedback needed: Certain websites cited are no longer available, but are still verifiable through archive.org.


 * GR: Then put the archive links in? VCL is at http://us.vclart.net/vcl/


 * How do you do that?--Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Go to archive.org, look up site, open site, check that it's working, copy from the URL bar. GreenReaper (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That technically won't be a link to the original source though. Maybe add the archive.org mirror after the initial reference? If yes then, how do you do that with templates? --Draco 2k (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You can use archivelink and archivedate parameters to fix this, it will replace the original URL and note that it has been archived as of the date specified. GreenReaper (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Hopefully, I'll get on with this later today. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what to do with this. Barring any excuses I could come up with (screen resolution, plain-text mess, citation templates, etc.), is there a syntax highlighter or WYSIWYG editor for this sort of task? --Draco 2k (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some sites are still on-line. Thanks, Dajagr!


 * Feedback: Have a look at Citation_templates and for example Template:Cite web, which includes options for archive urls. Using citation templates is always a good idea, because you never have to bother about correct formatting again and they offer a good overview of all meta-information which could be included. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you. I'll adjust the remaining links. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

All links adjusted or appended with archive.org mirror as per template. Removed one reference due to unavailability. Removed reference below. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a big number of links to external websites lacking at least a publisher and a retrieval date (if available, more information like author, date of creation, etc. would be even better of course).

Easy adjustment.


 * I have no idea what to do with this, or the one below. Barring any excuses I could come up with (screen resolution, plain-text mess, citation templates, etc.), is there a syntax highlighter or WYSIWYG editor for this sort of task? --Draco 2k (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be always clear, if a source (like [4] Dagna, Justin (2005). Fera Vita: Pax Draconis. Technicraft.) is a book, a scientific paper or an article.

Easy adjustment.


 * There are two [citation needed] in the article.

Of little importance.


 * "The fandom contains a relatively large portion of people reporting homosexuality, bisexuality or other forms of alternative sexual relationships." There should be percent numbers to give more precise information.

Easy adjustment.


 * Adjusted. Is such detailed listing really required? --Draco 2k (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Feedback: Such numbers are very interesting. Words like "many" should often be avoided if good percent numbers are available. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Roger. Can we round down numbers to fives or decades? --Draco 2k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, never do something like this. We take the numbers given in the sources and do not mess with them. (Except for rounding something like 34,5634290923% to 34,6% for the reader's convenience.) --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarification: If you have a study which says "69% of x", then you can of course write "in the study xyz, more than two thirds of x...". But you should not change the numbers given and say "66% of x". --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I'll see if it can be implemented in the article as is. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Heterosexual furries may participate in mixed-gender social body language between members of the same sex without being confused in their sexual identity." This needs a reference directly after the sentence.

There are two references used to back up two sentences. Should be easy to verify and adjust.


 * Duplicated the reference provided shortly thereafter to follow suit. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * GR: "May" is a little unclear - is there any quantitative measure in the refs? Furs may do a lot of things . ..


 * I don't know how to put it better. Exact quote below.

"It should be worth noting that heterosexual males and females within Furry Fandom also participate in this social body language between members of the same sex without any apparent threat to their sexual identity as a heterosexual. This seems to fly in the face of common sense unless it is seen as non-sexual by the participants and -rather- an element of a larger societal norm."


 * Err... Whoops. "This social body language" actually refers to 'skritching' in the original source. This doesn't seem exactly notable, or even properly identified by the source used... Remove it? --Draco 2k (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Feedback: It my be borderline notable, but at least the sentence has to be rewritten to reflect the limited scope of the claim made in the source. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the claim. It was miscited, and original phenomenon is hardly notable if at all. It could be expanded on later on if we get more references on it. Removed text below. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Heterosexual furries may participate in mixed-gender social body language between members of the same sex without being confused in their sexual identity."


 * The chapter about the history of the furry fandom does not cover more recent events, which is particularly interesting since the fandom has grown so much in recent years.

Google or Wikifur should help out with this.


 * GR: Agreed; this is really just a matter of updating the details, I'm not sure there's been that many major changes.


 * Google and Wikifur did not help out with this. And no sources mean no coverage. Is it really needed? Could someone do a double-take on this? --Draco 2k (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Feedback: I think that it is quite important at least to mention stuff like conventions now being visited by thousands of people instead of several dozen. The source(s) do(es) not have to specifically deal with the "history of the furry fandom", just contain information related to it. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This might help a bit. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no information about the worldwide situation of the furry fandom. I think that there are some interesting differences in the history and the social structure of the furry fandom in Europe.

Feedback needed: Sources on this could be impossible to acquire. The media coverage of the furry fandom currently seems to be too scarce to provide such details.


 * GR: We could ask the European furs to contribute but there's an issue of original research there. See Timeline of media coverage which includes some foreign media? There certainly are differences.
 * Here's a fair bit of media coverage from the recent Eurofurence. GreenReaper (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. Of course, we can't establish the differences as per WP:OR, and there's just not enough material either way. This sounds like it'd do nicely in Furry convention though. --Draco 2k (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Feedback: I know that this is tricky and it is not a must. I will try to write two or three sentences about the situation in Germany, at least. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! --Draco 2k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The following information does not belong in the chapter about "Art and literature": Although mammals are most commonly depicted, anthropomorphized reptiles, birds or aquatic animals may also be known as furries (or "scalies",[16] "avians",[17] or "aquatics" respectively).

Feedback needed: Why doesn't it belong there?


 * Double checked, this appears to be original research. The original claim and "aquatics" are not referenced, the "scalie" does not follow from citation given, and "avians" does not appear to be notable enough to guarantee mention.


 * I'm removing this paragraph. The removed material reads:

"Although mammals are most commonly depicted, anthropomorphized reptiles, birds or aquatic animals may also be known as furries (or "scalies", "avians", or "aquatics" respectively)."


 * GR: It also appeared vague because "may also be known" applies to people too - mixing the concept of the identity of furs with the artistic depiction of them.


 * We really have remarkably little sources on people's fursonas to begin with. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Feedback: It does not belong into the chapter about art, because it is, mainly, relevant as a form of identification. That fursonas are not just avatars like those of P&P-players should really be made more clear in the article. It is a very important part of the fandom. This information could be added in the "Roleplaying" chapter. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sadly, we don't have any reliable sources to claim that. Fact is, "fursona" doesn't really have a clear meaning even inside the fandom. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there are now quite some articles in local newspapers and other media coverage, I find it hard to believe that there are no sources available for the claim that furries often identify strongly with their avatar. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This something noone will be able to prove off the bat. The only thing I can suggest is trying Googling this yourself, but, as a reviewer, you are not expected to, or should perform any contributions to the article. Besides, it'd be impolite, so there's just my word to it.


 * I've been unsuccessful in this task so far, as seemingly were other editors that ever contributed to this article. In fact, I haven't even been able to find a concrete definition of the term even among the first-party sources.


 * Best I can propose is inserting this as an OR and adding a [citation needed] template afterwards, since GA qualifications allow for one or two of these in the article. Failing that, no sources mean no mention, and no relevance. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * About recent edit: does the article cited really reference definition of "fursona"?.. If so, thanks a bunch, and good job.


 * If not, however, it'll have to go as per WP:OR. That, and current revision does not logically follow since there's no associative definition of "fursona" given previously (and on-line journals are not reliable sources when it comes to statistical claims, universal claims, or, indeed, definitions of words). --Draco 2k (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There should be some information about the communities on art archives and personal blogs which are an important aspect of the fandom.

Feedback needed: Reliable second- of third-party sources on this seem to be very hard to acquire. Can we cite first-party ones here?


 * GR: Right. We've been dinged for bad sources before. Art archives have historically refused media comment; there's been the occasional interview, but not on very reliable websites. If primary sources are acceptable (the sort that would not be acceptable for establishing the notability of a separate article) then we can do this well. Other than that the closest we have as a reference are things like WikiFur, blog posts, or websites of questionable notability.


 * Feedback: I think that this topic is so important to the understanding of the furry fandom, that first-party sources are okay if no halfway decent secondary sources can be found. Possible, not too obscure, sources are Alexa stats for art archives (to show how big they are), interviews with important members of the furry fandom (like the main staff of conventions) or articles by such furries in anthro magazines. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't good. VCL and Furaffinity don't actually seem to have a centralised reporting system - so the only "news" there is about them comes from Wikifur, and DeviantArt uses administrator's personal blogs as main sources for announcements on things, if at all. Same for any remotely published interviews, though I haven't found any remotely notable ones, personally.


 * Alexa does monitor FA and VCL though, here and here. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I pass this because this issue can be easily fixed.
 * "The Milwaukee Brewers had a run-in" This anecdote is really not that important that a whole paragraph should be used for it. One sentence might be even enough. Why is Jim Powell's opinion relevant at all?

Proposing removal.


 * Condensed to one sentence and merged with the previous paragraph. Removed Jim Powell's photography habits. Hope this is acceptable wording. --Draco 2k (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * GR: Seems OK. It was big at the time but in retrospect it's not.


 * The chapter "Media coverage" looks like it has been written by a furry fan who wanted to defend the fandom against accusations in the media trying the hardest to meet WP:NPOV by carefully selecting his sources.

Feedback needed: We won't know what to fix if it's not named directly. Clarify?


 * GR: I recommend removing the furry survey bit at the end, or integrating it into the main body of that section. It doesn't flow well by itself, and would works better as an introduction to the section. Other than that, what Draco said, but responding more generally on the topic of media coverage . ..
 * The bulk of news coverage over the last year or two has trended positive-to-neutral. It was (at best) negative-to-neutral in the past. I believe he original purpose of that section was to show that. The question here is, can we be trusted when we provide sources that represent this - and if not, who's going to tell the story? (Part of the problem is we don't tend to get reliable third-party critiques of the flaws in news coverage though it's happened on occasion.)
 * We're not picky in listing all media coverage at the media timeline above, but this includes some from sources "X" - the ones who make money selling magazines with lurid front-page headlines. These are considered questionable by editors, but are also not refuted by any source Wikipedia would consider reliable. Would you put X on the same level as, say, a major local broadsheet reporting on a specific convention, which actually appears to have done its research?


 * The section could use a rewrite - but I don't think we should move bits around in order to give a certain impression, nor to present an impression followed by sourcing, rather than providing sources themselves.


 * From readability standpoint, what should go first here?.. Do we have any other GA articles that deal with media coverage? --Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I was more trying to figure out a way to avoid having that statement by itself. The survey statement is sourced, we might just be presenting it first. In the furry realm, furry convention and fursuit are probably the closest GAs, but there's only a bit of analysis in the former (media coverage is probably the weakest area) and an even smaller mention in fursuit. It is integrated into the rest of the article in fursuit, which might be a better route to follow than preserving a specific media section. GreenReaper (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I can see of Furry convention and Fursuit, their media-related sections/paragraphs are pretty much the same. I.e. a mess. They also seem to present negative responses in line with positive ones, just like this article. --Draco 2k (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Feedback: The chapter is obviously written to defend the furry fandom against the accusations made by very dubious parties like MTV. So it seems like no real critique is justified, which does not seem right since there are obviously some very controversial issues going on in the furry fandom. The sentence "In October 2007, a Hartford Advocate reporter attended FurFright 2007 undercover because of media restrictions. She learned that the restrictions were intended to prevent misinformation, and reported that the scandalous behavior she had expected was not evident.[62]" should be condensed to "In October 2007, a Hartford Advocate reporter came to the same conclusion after attending FurFright 2007 undercover because of media restrictions." and placed after the bit about the reporter (publication should be added!) attending Anthrocon. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously it's not obvious. If it looks like it, maybe you could give a few pointers as to why it does? I'm not sure why should we condense the two different anecdotes together here either - they seem to deal with different matters, and come up with only vaguely same response.


 * I understand this is not an urgent matter, but an advice is always welcome. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Althoug some improvements have been made in the first days after my initial assessment (definitely a good thing), the article does not meet the Good article criteria at the moment. Except for ongoing content issues (Is the article broad enough? Are the sources reliable?), the two most obvious current problems are the lead (see above) and the references which lack necessary meta-information. If no substantial improvements are made in these two regards, I will fail the nomination in a few days. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)