Talk:Crazy About One Direction

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.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a viral hoax claimed 42 people committed suicide after their homoerotic fan art was included in the film Crazy About One Direction?

• Source: Asquith, Daisy (14 July 2016). "Crazy About One Direction: Whose Shame Is It Anyway?" (PDF). In Bennett, Lucy; Booth, Paul (eds.). Seeing Fans: Representations of Fandom in Media and Popular Culture. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781501318450. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 January 2025.

• • ALT1: ... that One Direction fans were not crazy about Crazy About One Direction? Source: * Asquith, Daisy (14 July 2016). "Crazy About One Direction: Whose Shame Is It Anyway?" (PDF). In Bennett, Lucy; Booth, Paul (eds.). Seeing Fans: Representations of Fandom in Media and Popular Culture. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781501318450. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 January 2025.
• Julia, Jameson (19 December 2021). "'Story of My Life': Why One Direction fans are still participating". Southwestern Mass Communication Journal. 37 (1): 1–19. doi:10.58997/smc.v37i1.97.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Path (The Last of Us)
  • Comment: ALT1 meaning: directioners (fans of one direction) did not like the film. could be a last hook.

Created by Jolielover (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 16 past nominations.

jolielover♥talk 19:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - ?
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article is new enough, long enough and no copyvio. Both hooks are cited and imo interesting. Leaning towards ALT0 because it might be easier to understand. The synopsis is uncited which is allowed per MOS:FILM, so no issues there. Everything else seems well sourced except for a few minor problems that I'll list below. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Jolielover: Under reception, it says "The film faced backlash for addressing Larries," can you clarify that this was backlash from fans?
• In the line about Payne "claiming he "couldn't give a fuck" about Channel 4", per the source it seems like he was talking about the documentary not the channel. Once these are fixed I'll take another look. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@BuySomeApples: Added clarity on who the backlash was from (it was from fans), and changed 'Channel 4' to 'the programme', I misinterpreted it and thought he said that about the channel. jolielover♥talk 08:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Jolielover: this nom looks ready! BuySomeApples (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crazy About One Direction/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Icepinner (talk · contribs) 09:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! As part of Bilorv's challenges, I shall review this article. This is a pretty short article, so I anticipate the review won't take long. I'm very unfamiliar with One Direction and film articles, so this should be interesting (NPOV is gonna be the end of me, considering I rarely work on articles where NPOV is important). Icepinner 09:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Lead

Resolved

• Would it be possible to expand the lead to include production?
  • Added that it was produced during a time of media coverage on the fandom

Synopsis

Resolved

• A Twitter post is shown needs to be linked as it's the first mention, remove the link in on YouTube and Twitter
  • The issue has been resolved by the reviewer. Icepinner 02:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• Asquith presents the fandom as both a form of intense adolescent expression and a symptom of deeper emotional needs. This seems to be an analysis of the documentary, unless it was explicitly stated that Asquith presented the fandom in such a way? If not, must be removed under MOS:FILMPLOT
  • I rephrased the entire thing, sorry about that. Was my first time writing one. I think it should be fine now.

Production and release

Resolved

• where 500 people I'm in a bit of a pickle here; on one hand, the source says that it was 500 teenage girls part of the 1D fandom, though on the other hand, stating that here would certainly go against NPOV and the likes of it, yet it would be inaccurate to generalise it. I'm probably overthinking this, so feel free to reword it or object to this.
  • I think "500 people" is better than "500 fans" personally since, yes, you can't really assume they're al fans. Although from what I've seen, it is common for such articles to say fans instead. I suppose it is fine, but I don't see a problem with how this is right now.

Reception

Critical reception

Resolved

• The Atlantic described the documentary as characterising Directioners as "borderline stalkers". A minor complaint, but it's a bit odd that this is in the second paragraph, considering most of the reviews from news sites are in the above paragraph... How would you address this?
  • Moved up

Fandom

Resolved

• The quote cited to [3]:20 actually appears in page 19
  • My copy of the book (on Apple books) says it's on page 20. Must be variations from physical to digital.
    • Interesting, I got mine from Google Books. I suppose it could be kept then
• Directioners believed Maybe put "according to [name], Directioners believed" for DUE purposes?
  • Done
• the hashtag "BeliebersareHereforDirectioners" this is a preliminary note since I don't know the MOS policy for hashtags. I'm not sure if it should be "#[something]" or "hashtag '[something]'" and whether there should be consistency on which style, similar to the MOS for times and stuff.
  • Hm, I couldn't find MOS about hashtag standards. I don't mind it either way, and don't see an issue in either version.

One Direction

Resolved

• Are there any sources on the other 1D members' reactions, especially Harry?
  • No sources that I can find. Doesn't seem like they did.
    • Guess we gotta go with that

Image review

Resolved

• File:Crazy About One Direction - Natasha in her bedroom.png needs a detailed rationale
  • Expanded rationale
• All other images are within the public domain

Sources

Resolved

• [9] is dead :(
• [12]'s DOI is dead
  • It was dead briefly in July (hence that inactive note placed by bot) but I just checked and it's up again.
  • Added archived link
• All other sources have been checked and were found to have no issues whatsoever
• Why are the cited pages for [1] written starting from page 1, considering it's the 7th chapter? Is that numbering system used in the entire book?
  • Sorry, I labelled it such since the PDF didn't have numbers and only covered that chapter. I've changed it to reflect the actual page numbering.

Other comments

Comments

• FYI, a sample of Ewen 2019 was found on Google Books, so perhaps this could be incorporated into its citation?
  • Eh.. I guess |url= could do that, but I personally don't see a need.
    • I guess it's consistency, but this is GAN, so I'm not forcing you.
  • Same with Julia 2021
    • That's in the article, DOI link leads to that

@Jolielover: A nitpicky review but nonetheless a pretty good article. Feel free to object to any of my feedback and ping me when done. I'll place the review on hold. Icepinner 10:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, will address all these soon. I've already addressed some; see my replies. Thanks for the review! jolielover♥talk 17:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Jolie. Finish line is in sight :) Icepinner 01:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I've addressed all your comments - what do you think now? BTW, the challenge you are doing is interesting! First time I've seen it, and I'm interested in doing it. Thanks for that! jolielover♥talk 07:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

All comments and concerns have been addressed. I am satisfied this meets the GAN criteria and will pass it in accordance. I would've loved to see the other 1D members' reactions but only Louis released a public reaction, so I guess we gotta go with that. Interesting read, as a youth who isn't familiar with idolisation. @Jolielover: For Bilorv's challenges, I invite you to participate; some of the challenges (like archaeologist) are really easy, whilst others are very difficult (like time card). Maybe you have some articles that fit the bill, who knows? Icepinner 10:04, 29 August 2025 (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.