| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because the Furry fandom is one of my numerous hobbies/intrests, and I would like to help improve coverage of it on Wikipedia. I have been working on several things for WikiProject Furry, namely, the creation of a few new articles on Furry conventions that I could find sources for. However, seeing as this is the most important page that falls under the scope of WikiProject Furry, it ought to be top priority for improving. I would like feedback from all of you other Wikipedians about the best way forward, what would be good additions to this article, and how it can be raised from it's current B-class rating to a Good Article rating on the project's quality scale.
Thanks, SarrCat ∑;3 09:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Sarr Cat: I can't think of a subject I'm less interested in! So, for that reason, I thought I'd take a look. Well, I have to admit to being impressed. This is a well-written, extensively cited (though not checked) and eminently readable article which explained a few things to me that I find weird and strange - but I came away better informed. I do however have two main concerns which need addressing - see end. First: here are some observations as I read through:
- The longest-running online furry role-playing environment is FurryMUCK. This could do with a citation and mention its 1990 beginnings. Luckily I had Hovercards in use, so got the information I needed straight away, but others won't.
- Conventions: The world's largest[24] furry convention, Anthrocon with more than 5,861 participants, held annually in Pittsburgh in June,[25] was estimated to have generated approximately $3 million to Pittsburgh's economy in 2008.[26] I think citation 24 is in the wrong place, and splitting the sentence into two parts, with the citations at the end might work better. There is no follow-up on any European conventions, which might have added geographic balance. What about Japan - I'd assumed this was big in Japan? I suggest that Weasyl is used with a notatypo template to assist people like me who use a live spellchecker - it's so helpful to be able to quickly see the spelling is intentional and not have to waste time checking if it's an error for weasel.
- Public perception: Most furry fans claim that these media portrayals are misconceptions,[46][47][48] while the recent coverage focuses on debunking myths and stereotypes that have come to be associated with the furry fandom.[49] I was a bit confused by this sentence and felt there was something wrong with the second half. Unfortunately the citation that was offered in support appears to be dead. What does the recent coverage actually refer to? - I was unclear.
- Sociological: I would like a few more wikilinks here to help me out in this section, especially Wiccan, fantasy sport, anime etc.
- Sexual aspects: The last paragraph needs a bit of minor re-working. e.g.: A portion of the fandom is sexually interested in zoophilia, although a majority take a negative stance towards the former. As there is no 'latter', I found this wording confusing, just as I did with the phrase The older lower results, ... in the next sentence. Just a small tweak needed here, I think.
- Links: There appear to be a few dead ones - check with [this tool].
My first concern over the article as a whole relates to the need to ask for an expansion the Lead section to better reflect the content, as per MOS:LEAD. For people like me, not very interested in the topic, you need to provide us with a concise summary of the topic which gets across all the key points that follow - they're all there in the sub-headings, so it's a shame not to refer to them. I would expect about three good paragraphs in the lead. I also had a problem with this first sentence: The furry fandom is a subculture interested in fictional anthropomorphic animal characters with human personalities and characteristics. Subculture of what? fandom? A wikilink to fandom only appears once in the article- in the sociology section. Is this what should have been linked to in the first or second sentence? I was a bit lost, and perhaps this is because the article has clearly been written by those involved in the subculture, and I know nothing about it.
My second, and main concerns centres around neutrality. It's not a huge one, but I feel the section on 'Public perception and media' coverage is showing a little positive bias. Most furry fans claim that these media portrayals are misconceptions,[46][47][48] while the recent coverage focuses on debunking myths and stereotypes that have come to be associated with the furry fandom.[49] I'm afraid none of the citations really support this statement (most? really?), and, frustratingly, the last link is defunct. I suspect the first half is indeed true from what I've since found online, but I feel you can't support that statement with just those citations on Wikipedia. There are so many stats in the next section that this element is rather disappointing. (Elsewhere I probably wouldn't have noticed it!) To quote one documentary film-maker "Still, it sometimes felt that crucial pieces of information were being omitted so as to give the fandom a good public image." see here. And page 288 of the 2014 Encyclopedia of Social Deviance makes it clear that public misconceptions are still prevalent, and not a thing of the past. This source seems to take a very balanced, objective view of the subject and could be a useful source to quote/cite in the article, especially as it urges more serious socio-scientific research, and supports the statement above that I was criticising for being poorly cited. (Bear in mind I'm quite new to the Peer Review process, but I do hope this all helps, and that others assist, too. I've been surprised how interesting I found the task of going through the article!
Addendum: I've since discovered this article had two previous GA nominations - the last in 2008. It is disappointing that reworking of the lead section was highlighted back then, but remains outstanding, and that concerns were also raised then about apparent careful selection of citations on the press/media section. Concerns were raised in earlier reviews about the state of the citations - I have not had an opportunity to looked in any detail at these yet. Parkywiki (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not bad. Tbe structure is sound, and everything is referenced. But some refs don't stand up to scrutiny, for example this is a blog. Before this is taken to Good Article, each ref will need to be checked for reliability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)