Talk:Fan wiki/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Voorts (talk · contribs) 03:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 21:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Starting this up.

First sweep of prose review, we might be at a disagreement over the reader of the article: if we're stepping one down, for most of this article I'd say the intended audience would be read to be a half/full step above undergrad, which is too high. I've provided some suggestions on dumbing it down, and I think active voice would help out a fair bit. I'll complete a source review, and a second sweep of prose after whatever you do.

All done, some more points to address. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Prose and content

Lede

• A fan wiki is a wiki created by fans of a popular culture topic. Quite WP:POSA, along the lines of listings just under WP:OHTHATPARIS.
  • The first sentence needs to define the topic, and I don't think there's a better way to do it, even if it is obvious. There are wikilinks to wiki and popular culture there.
• Media and cultural studies scholars have studied fan wikis as forms of participatory culture that enable fans to build community. So this is their starting assumption? Or it is the product of research?
  • That line is blurred in the social sciences.
• Most fan wikis are currently hosted by Fandom. I don't see this in the body, and it should probably receive some "as of " qualification given the next sentence.
  • I'll add that into the body and add a cite. Removed. I can't remember where I saw this.
• disagreements about advertising and software. specify software is "outdated" given their issue with this is less obvious than advertising.
  • Done.

Description

• First line, same as above.
• particular cultural objects Bit too academic
  • Fixed.
• Jason Mittell stated that fan wikis Give a date for when he said this.
  • Done.
• I am assuming this is in error, but consensus links to a disambig page.
  • Fixed.
• the learning sciences scholar Jolie Christine Matthews stated that attribution probably not needed here as it's not an opinion or controversial.
  • Removed.

Functions

• serve documentary, narrative, and communal functions Less academic language.
  • Removed that sentence.
• 3/4 sentences in the intro of this subheading start with "Fan wikis", and the only one that doesn't starts with "Fans use fan wikis to"
  • Fixed.
• Fan wikis are also spaces for collaboration on creative works, including fan fiction and the production of fan theory I'll use this as an example of dumbing down language:

Fan wikis are also spaces where editors can collaborate on creative works, including generating fan fiction and fan theory. I am not a good writer but I think that communicates what I'm trying to get across. I won't be going line by line to identify where it's too academic, unless it's blatant, but its all affected. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Changed to your version.

• Great structure here
  • Thanks!
• The primary function of a fan wiki -> A fan wiki's basic purpose
  • Changed.
• You can use active voice more, i.e. "or the presentation of trivia" -> "presenting trivia"
  • Fixed.

Some more examples

• pages with analysis of the show's themes and -> pages analysing
  • Done.
• there are dedicated pages for analysis of -> fans dedicate pages to analyzing
  • Not done. I think the passive voice is better in this instance.

• Wikipedia editors, by contrast... character was not described. it's not immediately obvious that large swathes of fan wiki need to be reiterating how Wikipedia is not that. I don't think the comparison gives any more insight into fan wiki's level of detail. This is also something I want to think about whether this comment is true.
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I think the example shows that fan wikis often cover topics in significantly more detail than Wikipedia. In this case, whereas Wikipedia editors didn't even cover this character, it was considered one of the best works produced on Wookieepedia

Be more explicit in using it as an example, i.e. "This level of detail can be seen when comparing content on fan wikis with the same content on Wikipedia, where..."

• Done.

• Mittell stated that fan wikis create "alternative narratives" This seems more confusing than necessary, and it seems like there's two meanings of narrative: A) the plot and B) the aggregate construction of stressed themes. This also might just be me editorializing.
  • It's one of Mittell's more important points: that editors on fan wikis restructure the narrative in creative way, using a hypertext format and their own interpretation of the object of study, which are then read and used by other fans.

This is a lot clearer than Mittell. Use this instead of the quotes.

• Done. Rearranged that paragraph significantly.

• I think you don't need to say "fan wikis" every time, you can use "the wiki" more frequently as a pronoun
  • Fixed.
• assert cultural ownership over their wiki's subject dumb this down
  • Done.
• ; for example, the Star Trek fan wiki Memory Alpha provides more detail than the official Star Trek website. I don't think this example adds anything. If you think it should be included, you can integrate it more concisely, i.e. Fan wikis, such as the Star Trek wiki Memory Alpha, are often more comprehensive than official materials
  • Done.
• Fan wiki narratives also incorporate the creative efforts of editors add something like "in a more explicit way" given Mittell is claiming they are creating alternative narratives, which is an inherently creative process.
  • Done.
• based on the geography of the island and the creation of maps the creation of maps bit feels out of place, it should be clarified.
  • Done.
• wikis also allow rmv "also"
  • Done.
• the wiki for the American TV series Supernatural -> the American TV series Supernatural wiki
  • Done.
• gloss paratexts and remove the rest of the sentence
  • Done.
• By contrast, the fan be more explicit with what is being contrasted
  • Done.
• collaborate with their objects of documentation -> their subjects
  • Done.
• Similarly, remove, they're not that similar. You could leave them as separate sentences or conjoin with "and".
  • Done.
• part of the cultural text I can't think of a good alternative, but it sounds quite bad. I would actually prefer it was removed, with Lostpedia became a part of the cultural text when replaced with On Lostpedia,
  • Changed to something else.

History

• I find it difficult to imagine that all the information worth including on Fandom is that they assimilated communities, and then communities left.
  • Added.

Suggestions

• various topics I am generally against "various" when examples are provided, as the reader can discern "variety"
  • Done.
• Sentences are quite short, which I appreciate, but variety in short and longer sentences using conjunctions would improve readability. WP:SHORTSENTENCES: I don't endorse the tone.
  • I think there's a good variety of sentence lengths. Can you point out some examples?

Some places I'd probably use a conjuntion:

• {tq|to substantiate claims. For example}}
  • Changed.
• television show's official canon.[9] Others, like Lostpedia
  • Done.

• that fan wikis require editors to collaborate -> that editors on fan wikis need to collaborate dumbing it down
  • Changed.
• Fans of the television show Battlestar Galactica, who edited articles about the show on Wikipedia, eventually formed their own wiki.[28] Likewise, fans of the Star Wars franchise founded Wookieepedia after facing complaints about the "overabundance of minutiae related to Star Wars appearing on Wikipedia".[27] ->

These included fans of the television show Battlestar Galactica, and also fans of the Star Wars franchise, who founded Wookieepedia due to complaints about the "overabundance of minutiae related to Star Wars appearing on Wikipedia"

• Done

Sources

• [1] Y
• [2] Y
• [4] Y
• [6] Y, the Comerfield source can probably just be sourced to page 285 instead of 288-298. Get rid of Sköld as it's not really talking about fan wikis in general.
  • Done.
• [11] Y
• [15] Toton doesn't appear to be a good source, the author is a PhD student and the "journal" isn't peer reviewed and is edited by grad students. clock
  • WP:RS doesn't require a journal to be peer reviewed, and also doesn't speak to the qualifications of authors. Grad students routinely publish in peer and non-peer reviewed journals while they're pursuing their PhD. In any event, Toton is cited by Mittell, Jones, etc., as one of the foundational studies in the field. As an aside, if we couldn't cite non-peer reviewed journals edited by grad students, then we wouldn't be allowed to cite most law reviews in the United States, including the Harvard Law Review and Yale Law Journal.
• [21] Y

Other

• No images to speak of Y
• No COPYVIO/OR Y 28.1% Earwig, titles of texts
• Broad/not too narrow Y very good engagement with the literature, and reference texts. A very good, and satisfying structure.
• Stable Y
• Neutral Y

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: I've responded to your comments. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou, I'll have a response in the next 12 hours. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've responded regarding Toton above, and I'll try to get to everything else later today. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou. Sorry for the delay, I've been sick. Happy with everything, passing this now. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.