I want to take this thing up to FAC one of these days; but it's in a somewhat tricky position. Academic sources *exclusively* take one side of the debate here, and I'm unsure how that jives with the comprehensive coverage of the subject that the FA criteria demand. I'd like it if anyone who has experience taking controversial (esp. controversial cultural issue) articles to FAC can take a look at it, and to see what else I can do to make this article shine! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did a bit of deep searching and came up upon a few more sources. Were there any reasons they weren't included (e.g. didn't provide anything new, quality concerns etc.)?
Although, I'm not quite sure the existing sources or these sources could necessarily pass the "high-quality" bar of FACR. I haven't been able to take a closer look, but it seems a majority of the references appear to be primary sources which would really limit what you could take away from them. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources? In the article, the sources are journal articles plus an academically published book and a dissertation; the sources you linked here are dissertations and another journal article. These are secondary sources: The book and the journal article are secondary sources.. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two examples given there are secondary sources, but that's in part because they were written 150 years and 198 years after the proclamation, which gives them the historical distance to be a secondary source. Peer-reviewed academic books, journals, dissertations, etc. are reliable sources, but they are not necessarily secondary sources.
Morimoto (2020) is a transcript of a panel discussion (the equivalent of an interview) and would be defined as primary sourcing by policy. The content Fazekas (2022) provides about the nature of fan communities is ethnographical in nature, which is likely primary, but could depend on the specific claims being cited. Urbańczyk (2022) seems to be mostly secondary, although, of course, the specific Bourdieu-based observations are not. Abirime (2022) is partly secondary, but the claims are based on observational data are not.
That's not to say the articles are necessarily being used incorrectly—we don't ban primary sources from being used in articles and research papers can be both primary and secondary, depending on the claim being sourced.[1] I just think the number of primary sources warrants a second look over the specific claims being cited to them, that's all. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, what specific rule are you following when deciding to use Sfn or or in-line citations? I assumed at first it would be articles cited only once, or something like that, to save space, but that doesn't seem to be the case. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^Be aware that [research articles and review articles] can be both a primary and secondary source, although research articles tend to be more useful as primary sources and review articles as secondary sources. (WP:NOR)
