Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stucky (fandom)/archive1

Stucky (fandom)

 * Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This article covers the "ship" of Captain America and Bucky Barnes, fictional characters that appear in media produced by Marvel Comics. The article covers an overview of the characters' mutual history as it relates to the fandom, analysis of the fandom drawn from media and academic sources, and the response to the fandom by relevant individuals associated with the characters.

I wrote this article because I wanted to write an encyclopedic article about a topic that, on its face, is extremely "unencyclopedic". I attempted to avoid fancruft as much as possible, focusing the majority of the article on analysis of Stucky as phenomenon in fandom (though some plot and character context is necessary to establish why it is a phenomenon in the first place). The article has successfully passed GA and DYK reviews, and I am hopeful that it's ready for FA status. Morgan695 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
I am probably one of the few people on this planet that has never watched a single MCU movie, but I always appreciate some good slash fiction lol. Below are my suggestions:


 * This could just be me so take this with a grain of salt, but I am uncertain about the the first sentence. It just seems a little too wordy to me. Would something like, "Stucky, also Steve/Bucky or Bucky/Steve is the ship name given to the slash pairing of Marvel Comics characters Steve Rogers (Captain America) and Bucky Barnes (the Winter Soldier)", be more concise? Again, this is just a suggestion so it is really up to you, but it was something that I kept returning to when reading the lead.
 * I think this sentence, "Though Rogers and Barnes have appeared in media dating to the 1940s, fan works depicting a romantic or sexual relationship between the characters grew substantially in popularity in the 2010s following appearances by Rogers and Barnes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), where the characters' (canonically platonic) relationship forms a major cross-film plot element.", is rather long and cumbersome. I would suggest the following to trim it a little:
 * I would replace "following appearances by Rogers and Barnes in the" with "following their appearances in the" as it is already clear who is being referenced from context.
 * This part, "where the characters' (canonically platonic) relationship forms a", seems particularly cumbersome to me. Would something like "where their friendship forms a" as that still conveys that it is platonic while being somewhat more concise.
 * Is "cross-film" really necessary in the phrase "a major cross-film plot element"? I understand the intention as presumably their relationship is important in multiple films. I am uncertain if it is needed here, particularly since the sentence references to the MCU franchise as a whole and not a singular film.
 * This is more of a clarification question, but what is the difference between "critics" and "commentators" as used in this part: "Critics and commentators have used the popularity of Stucky in fandom to remark on a range of topics,"
 * I would use the full characters' names whenever they first appear in the body of the article. So I would include Rogers and Barnes' full names in the first sentence of the "Marvel Comics" subsection. It is also a little strange that Captain America gets linked twice, in the "See also" part and in the prose, while Bucky Barnes only gets linked in the "See also" part. I'd link Barnes in the prose and remove the "See also" part under the "Marvel Comics" subsection completely as the links in the prose should be enough.
 * For this part, "is strictly platonic, and is not depicted as overtly sexual or romantic", I would remove "overtly" as it does imply, at least to me, that their relationship is being intentionally portrayed as sexual or romantic through subtext à la Xena: Warrior Princess. Unless that is the case, then it can be kept of course.
 * I have received the following note consistently during FACs. I have been told to avoid the "with X verb-ing" structure, like "personal bond, with some critics likening their relationship". I do not have a strong position on it either way, but I still wanted to bring this to your attention.
 * I am not an expert on ALT text, but for the images in the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" subsection, I would add more than just the actors' names.
 * I would move the ship link from this part, "The popularity of Stucky as a ship in fandom rose substantially following the introduction", to this earlier part, "in pre-social media shipping fandom of the early 2000s, Rogers", since items should be linked on their first appearance. If you are nervous about SEAOFBLUE, then I would not think social media needs a link as it has entered common knowledge.
 * Who "says" the following: (Rogers' and Barnes' relationship has been called the "emotional cornerstone")? I would clarify this in the prose.
 * I think this part, "where Barnes' memory of Rogers causes him to overcome his conditioning as a brainwashed assassin", may be somewhat jarring to an unfamiliar reader as it was not previously established that the Winter Solider was a brainwashed assassin. I would try to add something to this part, "the character is brought back from supposed death as the Winter Soldier", to clarify that to someone like me who has not read or seen anything Marvel-related.
 * Should WWII be spelled out as World War II in this part, "escalating from disobeying orders in WWII"? I would look at the military history FAs to get a better understanding for this as again, I am not an exert on this at all.

I think you have done a wonderful job with this article, and it is great to see this type of topic being represented in the FAC space. I have gotten through the lead and "Overview" section, but I promise to add my comments about the rest of the article by the end of the week. Apologies for the delay. I just want to make sure I read through the article thoroughly. I hope my comments are helpful and have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your initial comments. I have resolved all except for the introductory sentence, which I have kept as-is for now. Most of these were just simple copy tweaks, but I rephrased the "emotional cornerstone" sentence to better align with the source. Re: the difference between critics and commentators, it's an arbitrary distinction and probably one that can be removed if you feel strongly about it, but I feel like in a pop culture context "critics" typically reads as "professional reviewers", when I wanted to convey that not just critics but academic scholars, media sources, etc. have also remarked on Stucky. Morgan695 (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding to my comments so far. I am still uncertain about the introductory sentence and the distinction between critics and commentators, but I will leave both up to other editors as I could just be over-thinking it. I will look over the rest of the article shortly. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is more of a clarification question, but aside from the Gwenpool Strikes Back moment included in the lead, are there any other times where people believe Marvel references Stucky in the comics or any other related media?
 * Another clarification question, but why are the citations for the first sentence of the "#GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend" staggered out in such a manner? My primary concern is that it somewhat hinders readability.
 * I would include the year that Frozen was first released.
 * I would remove the LGBT link in this part, with the lack of LGBT characters in media properties owned by Disney, and put it up here, a sociological text by LGBT historian George Chauncey, as that is the first time the acronym appears in the article.
 * I think this part, which has been quoted by outlets the context of their coverage of Stucky., is missing a word. I would add "in" between "outlets" and "the".
 * This is what I have noticed from my first read-through of the article. I am only focusing on the prose as I will leave anything regarding the sources/citations and the images (beyond just the ALT text) to more experienced editors. I will read through the article again to see if there's anything I overlooked. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've incorporated your suggestions. To my knowledge, Stucky has not been referenced in Marvel canon beyond the referenced Gwenpool Strikes Back moment. Morgan695 (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I would tone down some of the quote usage in the "Response" section. For instance, in this part (describing the characters as "each other's soulmate."), I would remove the quote and replace it with soulmates. In other instances, I would paraphrase this quote "have had a crush on Steve Rogers at some point in the past.", and I think "a love story," can be paraphrased as well.

This is my last point. Once it is addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Changes have been incorporated. I left the "had a crush" passage as a quote because it's informal language that I feel reads better as a quote, but I cut down on quotes elsewhere so hopefully the passage reads better. Morgan695 (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing everything and for your patience. I am still uncertain if the "had a crush" quote is entirely necessary, but it is a small point. It does not hold back my support and other editors may have differing opinions on it. Either way, I support this for promotion following my review of the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Image review by Nikkimaria

 * Don't use fixed px size
 * Suggest adding alt text
 * File:Gwenpool_Stucky_Panel.png needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All three edits have been incorporated, though Template:multiple image does not support the |upright= field, so it has been left with fixed pixel sizes. Morgan695 (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Source review by Buidhe

 * Metro is listed as "generally unreliable" at WP:RSP.
 * The Metro source is used only to confirm that the tweet was made by Jess Salerno; all other info cited is substantiated by the Kotaku source. Hopefully that's an acceptable use.


 * What makes outerplaces.com or comicbook.com RS?
 * Removed Outer Places link, as the cited passage is substantiated by the IO9 source. I couldn't find specific guidance for comicbook.com at Wikiproject Comics, but it is the comic book content wing of Gamespot, which is considered a reliable source by Wikiproject Video Games.


 * The Tumblr account which gives "year X top ships" seems to be some random Tumblr account . buidhe 19:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fandom on Tumblr records is administered by Tumblr itself, per their about page.
 * I don't see where on that page it says it's administered by Tumblr.
 * The page references that the blog is run by the Tumblr content team. Also found this Hollywood Reporter article confirming that Fandometrics is run by Tumblr itself. Morgan695 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Initial response above. Morgan695 (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Indopug
Comment "ship name given to the slash pairing of" contains terminology that is unknown by the lay reader. The sentence needs to be replaced by one that explains the concept entirely in common English, especially since it's the first sentence.—indopug (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Revised lede to better explain these concepts. Morgan695 (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Therapyisgood
I'm sorry this doesn't have more reviews.


 * an argument infamously made not sure we need "infamously"
 * Replaced with "discredited" and citation. Seduction of the Innocent is infamous in the most literal sense, in that it is both thoroughly debunked and widely popular, but I think both words work.
 * "Discredited" is a loaded word, I think you need more citations if you're going to say "discredited" (I was thinking three to five). which asserted "asserted" is also a word to watch. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Asserted" I still find "asserted" troubling. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Replaced with "argued". Morgan695 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this and I've reverted it back to "asserted", not just to remove the repeat wording of "argue" but to comply with WP:FRINGE. I appreciate your rigor here, but Seduction of the Innocent is bunk (and very famously so), and I don't want to include any language that implies it has credibility. Morgan695 (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support knew it needed another look over. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from The Squirrel Conspiracy
I do not believe that File:Gwenpool Stucky Panel.png meets non-free content criteria #8. The scene, which is not itself discussed anywhere outside of the thumbnail, is supposed to illustrate Marvel acknowledging the existence of the ship. This is done more than adequately by prose alone in the "Response" section, and on top of that, the text in the image is unreadable due to the image size, so whatever message it's supposed to convey, it isn't doing.

If featured articles are supposed to represent the best that this project has to offer, they need to - in my opinion - follow the NFCC most stringently. Right now, because of the presence of this image and the lack of in-article prose to justify its inclusion, I don't think that the article meets criteria 3 of WP:FA?. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If the image does indeed not meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, and that is your sole objection to the article not meeting FA status, I am open to having a discussion around its removal. Pinging Nikkimaria to weigh in, as they previously did an image review for the article. Morgan695 (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of participating in the FAC process except for around the file namespace. Getting articles up to FA level is not my wheelhouse; the file namespace is. As I did previously with Featured article candidates/Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C./archive1, once the image concern is addressed, I'll strike my oppose and replace it with "Comment". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I will defer to 's judgement, as judging from other FACs, they are better versed in image use guidelines than I am. Morgan695 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the image is justifiable in this case, but NFCC evaluation is by its nature a subjective assessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, Nikkimaria. For now I'll elect to keep the image in the article, but will return to this discussion if it becomes a sticking point once it comes time to promote/not promote the article. Morgan695 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's acceptable. There are some nuances a reader can pick up from the panels that would be hard to convey concisely in prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.
 * Since everything in the lead should be in the body, how about a short subsection in "Background" that covers what shipping is? I think two or three sentences would be enough. Not much more is needed than you have in the lead, though you could introduce the noun "ship" as well, since you use it lower down.  You might not need "Stucky is an example of slash, a genre of fan works that focus on same-sex characters" in the lead if you put some information in the background section.
 * Done.
 * Is it? Looks like you just define shipping in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Expanded to define slash, and noted "ship" as an alternate word for shipping,


 * What's the point of mentioning Wertham? If Seduction of the Innocent had never been published, would "frequently interpreted as having a homoerotic subtext" still be true?  If so, Wertham's just a historical footnote, and perhaps should be relegated to an actual note.
 * I think in an article about a gay relationship between a hero and sidekick, it would be a massive oversight to not mention Wertham. Per my comments to Therapyisgood above, the idea of hero-and-sidekick relationships as having a homoerotic dimension is one that has some cultural salience, and should be acknowledged.
 * Sure, but it reads oddly to make a statement like "hero-and-sidekick relationships in comics are frequently interpreted as having a homoerotic subtext", which I know perfectly well is true, and then immediately point out that the argument was made in a discredited work. I think the article is compressing something you know to the point a reader new to the material will not understand what you're saying, and unpacking it a bit more would be useful.  For example, do we now have a widespread awareness of possible homoerotic subtexts in hero-sidekick relationships because of Wertham?  If so, the fact that his book is nonsense isn't the point; he's the one who brought the trope into mainstream awareness.  I can see you would still want to say "discredited" or something like it, but the current phrasing is not helpful to a new reader.  That's why I suggested putting the information about Wertham in a note, where it wouldn't interrupt the thought.  A note saying "The suggestion that hero-and-sidekick relationships in comics have a homoerotic subtext was originally made by Frederick Wertham in his 1954 book Seduction of the Innocent.  The book was part of his campaign against storylines in comics which he believed caused juvenile delinquency; his research has since been discredited".  That separates the discrediting of his research from the introduction of the trope.  I'm not insisting that you use a note in that way, but the current sentence structure seems wrong to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Added.


 * Gavia Baker-Whitelaw of The Daily Dot notes: I'd avoid the use of "note" for anything other than direct statements of fact; it implies that what follows is definitely true. I think "argues" would work here.  You also have J. Richard Stevens "noting" something further down; I'd make that "commenting" or something similar.
 * Done.


 * The way you present Joanna Robinson's comments makes it sound as if Sharon Carter was invented by Marvel to kill off the homoerotic interpretation of Rogers' and Barnes' relationship. I don't know the comics at all, but as far as I can tell Sharon Carter has been around for a long time as a love interest for Rogers, so I think it should be clearer to the reader that the film is inserting an already existing storyline rather than inventing something completely new.
 * Clarified Carter as being a character who is long established as a canonical love interest in the comics. At least in the films, Carter is a minor character whose romantic interest in Rogers comes somewhat out of left field, which was noted by multiple critics.


 * While Rogers and Barnes appear in both Infinity War and Endgame, comparably less time is spent on their relationship: suggest "Rogers and Barnes appear in the next two films, Infinity War and Endgame, but less time is spent on their relationship".
 * Done.


 * These online communities are typically majority female, in contrast to the majority male mainstream comics fandom: "Mostly" might read more naturally than "majority" in both cases here.
 * Done.


 * Without canonical material that can be drawn from, these particular works often maintain a high degree of historical fidelity: why "particular"? and I don't think the phrasing works here.  Do you mean something like "Although there is no canonical material to draw from, these works are faithful to the real-world history of the gay subculture of 1940s New York"?
 * Rephrased section.


 * Stucky represents both the objectification and subjectification of Steve Rogers as character: I don't understand this.
 * Rearranged section. Basic point is that Stucky is on some level a case of people finding two characters attractive and wanting to see them have sex (objectification), but also a desire to explore Steve Rogers as a character (subjectification ). Let me know if the paragraph as it stands now makes sense.


 * The comments at the end of the second paragraph of "Analysis and impact" astonished me. In the early 1980s I dated a woman who ran Star Trek conventions and wrote K/S, and although I didn't do more than glance through the K/S zines she had, the "great transcendent love" was clearly only part of the focus -- there was a great deal of erotic or pornographic writing and art.  So the idea that a slash ship is notable if it focuses on the homosexuality just amazes me; perhaps slash fiction has changed a lot since then?  Page 96 of this source, for example, which is from 1997 (and I know it's just a master's thesis so it's not the best source out there) comments on there being "a strong commitment to sexually explicit writing".  So the question I have for this FAC is: can you be sure that the commentary about this in the article reflects all the sources have to say?
 * The crux of the argument that Coker makes is that slash fiction works of the 1970s and 1980s did not engage with gay identity. Per Coker: It has only been in the last decade that fan writers have become more willing to label the characters of these stories gay, or at least bisexual; especially in the 1970s and 1980s, fans wanted to distance beloved characters from the stereotypes and even the identity of gayness. Instead, they depicted the men as sharing a great, transcendent love that eliminated the boundaries of gender. Indeed, it was an article of faith that neither man would have had same-sex sex prior to their romantic involvement with each other... So the issue is not about whether early slash works depicted sex or romance, which they did, but the way in which they depicted those things. I remember one of the arguments I was going to make if this article got AFD'd was that Stucky is notable as a phenomenon in fandom because it represents an evolution of how slash fandom deals with gay identity: the way that Kirk and Spock fanworks often depicted the characters as having the referenced "transcendent" love that defied labels and sexuality represented an unwillingness by fan creators to engage with gay identity, whereas Stucky fanworks often depict the characters as explicitly identifying as gay or bisexual, being confronted with homophobia, facing inner turmoil over their sexual identity, partaking in gay culture, etc.
 * That does make sense, but your explanation here is clearer than what you have in the article. My reaction when I read your comments here was "Oh, so the older fiction didn't give the protagonists a gay identity", and from what I can recall that's absolutely correct.  Would using a term like "identity" work in the article?  The sentence that I think is intended to convey this is Stucky as a phenomenon in shipping is notable in that it devotes significant focus to the characters' imagined homosexuality or bisexuality.  If I originally read that as referring to their sexual interactions, and not to the cultural or social positioning of the protagonists, then others are likely to as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Added.


 * In the specific case of #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend, The Hollywood Reporter noted that the campaign "highlights demographic shifts that have yet to be reflected in the texts audiences are responding to," in reference to the popularity of Stucky relative to the lack of LGBT characters in superhero films. This seems a bit wordy, given that much of what it says beyond the quote is already in or implied by the previous sentence.  Unless I'm missing the point I think this could be attached to the previous sentence with a comma: '..., and noted that the #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend campaign "highlights demographic shifts that have yet to be reflected in the texts audiences are responding to".'
 * Rephrased a bit, but I feel like the quote loses some clarity without the "in reference to the popularity..." addendum.


 * Suggest changing the "Response" section title to "Marvel's response" to make it clearer what it covers.
 * Done.


 * it's great to see people argue about it what that relationship means: looks like an extra word got dropped into the quote? If this is the real quote a "[sic]" after "it what" might be worth it.
 * Corrected quote.


 * Not a big deal, but do we need all three of the comic-related "See also" links? I would have thought the first one covers the next two.
 * I think they add interesting context to the article; LGBT themes in American mainstream comics might seem redunant but it's a good article that I think people who seek out this topic would be reasonably interested in reading about.

Generally this is very well-written and well-structured. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Initial response above. Morgan695 (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Additional responses above. Morgan695 (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I'm doing a copyedit, I kind of feel like the Gavia Baker-Whitelaw of The Daily Dot part makes more sense as "noted" rather than "argued," since she's just describing plot details. She is doing so in the context of applying canon to her own analysis of Stucky, but Rogers disobeying orders and then becoming an international fugitive for Barnes' sake are things that happen as plot, and aren't subjective analysis. Morgan695 (talk)
 * I reread the quote and if you want to change it back I'm fine with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. This is a well-done article. There's one unstruck point above which doesn't prevent me from supporting, but I'm going to restate it here since I think I failed to make my point clear above. In the lead, you define "shipping" and "slash". Everything in the lead is supposed to be in the body, but those definitions are only in the lead, and not in the body. I was suggesting that you create a new subsection in the body under "Background", perhaps called "Shipping", and put in a couple of sentences of explanation. If you were to do that, you might find it possible to reduce the need for explanations in the lead, which would be good. You could even avoid the unfamiliar terms in the lead completely, only introducing the terminology in the body, but I'm not sure that's the best approach. Anyway, that was what I meant to say; I don't think it's a big deal if you don't want to make that change, so I'm supporting regardless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)