This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the
current tasks, visit the
notice board,
the attached article or discuss it at the
project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Salmon, Catherine; Burch, Rebecca L. (2020). "I'm with You Till the End of the Line: The Romanticization of Male Bonds". In Carroll, Joseph; Clasen, Mathias; Jonsson, Emelie (eds.). Evolutionary Perspectives on Imaginative Culture. Springer. pp. 291–305.
doi:
10.1007/978-3-030-46190-4_15.
ISBN978-3-030-46189-8.
Did you know nomination
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominated within time and long enough. Copyvio seems ok, earwigs copyvio mainly throws up quotes. QPQ done. Articles looks well referenced and within policy. Hooks are cited inline and referenced.
ALT 0 is a good one, as Morgan695 has pointed out.
I would let ALT1 be over the subjectivity of widely covered.
ALT 2 is also a nice one.
ALT3 has 212 characters, more than the suggested "about 200".
I'll take a look at this one! I think I tidied the references on this one a while ago when it was up for DYK but haven't done any substantive editing to it other than that. Excited to dive in! —
Collintc17:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
This article is in great shape and a lot of work has clearly been put into it.
1a: Prose is easy to read and does an excellent job combining sources in a natural way. There are two places I'd like clarifications:
There are several instances where it's unclear what type of work (book, comic book, film, etc.) is being referenced; would you mind specifying? (I'm looking at Captain America: White and Black Widow in the Response section, and Gay New York in Analysis and impact but there may be a few other instances where it's ambiguous.)
In #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend, it's not immediately obvious that Marvel is a Disney-owned property; would you mind specifying this either with a note or in the text somehow?
1b: Great lead summary! All other required MoS elements complied with.
2a: Strong reflist with consistent ref style.
2b: Much higher than GA-standard attribution. Great work. Tumblr statistics come from Tumblr proper and AO3 source directly sources an AO3 statistic so no qualms with those.
2c: No original research concerns.
2d:Direct quotation appears to be solely quoted and attributed, no other close paraphrasing/copyvio concerns noted.
3a: Sufficiently broad.
3b: The only concern I have here is the inclusion of the {{
tweet}} template which does not add meaningful information to the article not already covered by the preceding sentence explaining that the user made that tweet. Everything else is appropriately focused.
6a:File:Gwenpool Stucky Panel.png is FU and appropriately tagged. Evans and Stan images are freely licensed and attributed on their pages.
6b: Pics definitely relevant! I appreciate there being a source referencing the Gwenpool panels to justify their inclusion in the article.
All in all, this is very close to GA status and just needs a few touches to get there. Thanks for your patience waiting for this review. I'll give you a week although feel free to ping me whenever! Kindly —
Collintc18:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The article compares Bucky and Steve to those two to show how their relationship is platonic, but the article on Achilles and Patroclus's relationship says in the first paragraph that they were often portrayed as lovers. I don't think they're a good example. Unfortunately, I don't have an account to edit this semi-protected article myself.
129.101.212.228 (
talk)
02:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
The article mentions Achilles and Patroclus because there are two critics that make that comparison. Both sources that make the comparison are identified at the end of the sentence. Wikipedia derives its content from third-party reliable sources, so it reflects what critics say, even if we as readers can think of better examples.
RetiredDuke (
talk)
11:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Stupid question, I know, but doesn't this belong on a Wikia fandom page and not Wikipedia itself? What is the justification for putting this on the main site? I understand someone put a lot of effort into it and should be commended for doing so (good job, you!), but I'm not convinced it has any academic relevance. Though, I assume it meets all relevant Wikipedia criteria, as it would not have been promoted otherwise.
Pernicious.Editor (
talk)
16:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Your last sentence is correct, and this clearly meets
WP:GNG. I agree that the author(s) did a good job. Of course, this is a truly exceptional "ship" in the coverage it got; the vast majority do indeed not belong on Wikipedia. Crossroads-talk-04:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply