Wikipedia:Peer review/He-Man as a gay icon/archive2

He-Man as a gay icon


I listed this article once before, but only one user commented. Having made some changes based upon the comments I received, I would like to get some additional feedback on how to further improve this article, hopefully to get it to FA status. One of the difficulties with it is that Wikipedia doesn't exactly have another article quite like this, so there no guidelines to follow. If anyone has further sources that could prove useful here, or maybe how one of the existing sources could be better utilized, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Aoba47

 * For the lead's image, I would strengthen the argument that He-Man was connected to homoerotic imagery through the harness. Right now, the caption reads that He-Man wore this type of harness, which is considered homoerotic and part of LGBT culture, but does not fully tie the two ideas together. See something like the lead image in Stucky (fandom) to see how these interpretations are clearly and concisely conveyed. The Comic Book Resource citation has a good example of tying these two ideas directly together with this sentence: To make matters more obvious, turning into He-Man would leave Adam wearing only a harness, which especially in the '80s was a fairly homoerotic image. I think a stronger caption would be beneficial. Let me know if this makes sense by the way as it is a more complicated point that I struggled with conveying here. And to be clear, I think this point and these images are great. They just need some further finessing in my opinion.
 * Just wanted to point out that this comment has not been addressed yet. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I know. I'm sorry about that. Classes started again and there's a lot of work and planning to do, so I may be a little late with responses. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. This is a peer review so there is absolutely no reason to rush anything. I hope that I did not give off that impression. I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of it as comments can easily blend together. Best of luck with classes! Those should definitely take the priority so that shows you have your focus on the right things. Aoba47 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * For File:Gay He-Man - Cosplay and Alexsander Freitas.jpg, I would archive the source links. It is not required, but it would prevent any potential headaches in the future regarding link rot and death. I would also include author links to the individuals's main Flickr accounts (i.e. istolethetv and Kent)
 * I would encourage you to link gay icon in the lead and in the article.
 * The lead repeats that He-Man is a fictional superhero twice so I would find a way to avoid that repetition.
 * I would remove "many" in this part, established many traits of the character, as from my understanding, those kinds are words not considered examples of FA writing.
 * I believe this part, especially regarding LGBT subcultures like the gay clone culture, his double life being reminiscent of closeted gay men, and his perceived homosexuality, could be phrase in a clearer and more concise manner.
 * Has this queer reading ever been addressed by academics? I would think that would be the case, but the lead does not mention anything about academia and instead keeps the focus entirely on media.
 * There have been a few academic books and journals that discuss He-Man being a gay icon or his sexuality, with the soruces being in the Bibliography section. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping and the response. Shouldn't this academic coverage be briefly addressed in the lead? As I have mentioned above, the lead gave me the impression that these discussions were handled primarily be other forms of media. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course. I'll get on in. I guess this may come up later, but I was wondering. Do you think that the academic sources should be in a separate section or is it better to split how they're used in the article based on topic as they are now? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not gotten to that part so I cannot really say for certain, but I think doing it by topic makes the most sense, but I will keep this in mind when I read the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There have been a few academic books and journals that discuss He-Man being a gay icon or his sexuality, with the soruces being in the Bibliography section. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping and the response. Shouldn't this academic coverage be briefly addressed in the lead? As I have mentioned above, the lead gave me the impression that these discussions were handled primarily be other forms of media. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course. I'll get on in. I guess this may come up later, but I was wondering. Do you think that the academic sources should be in a separate section or is it better to split how they're used in the article based on topic as they are now? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not gotten to that part so I cannot really say for certain, but I think doing it by topic makes the most sense, but I will keep this in mind when I read the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

These are my comments for the lead. I will go through the rest of the article later in the week, but feel free to go through my comments now as it will honestly take me some time to get to the rest of the review. Best of luck with this peer review and I hope you have better luck this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as a note. I think I will wait to continue my review until my above comments have been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)