Talk:Furry fandom/GA2

GA review

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

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 14:35, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jishara (talk · contribs) 16:09, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: my comments are below! Ping me when you get a chance to make your updates, I'm giving you seven days as per usual. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jishara, I'll give my responses to the below criteria with corresponding numbers:

1. I believe I addressed all places where first names were used instead of last names. I have 'fixed' most of the problems you pointed out here, but I kept "advertised to" in the last quote because that is the specific meaning that is intended. I don't know what the other problems are unless you point them out to me.
2. The "Best Dramatic Series" sentence lacks a reference because if it did have one it would end up with all the footnotes piled up at the end of the paragraph rather than on each entry it's relevant to. Ther are only a few places in the demographics section where it would really make sense to reduce the phrases that appear in both sources (FurScience and this article) - am I going to rewrite every instance of "members of the furry community", "in the furry fandom" and "associated with the furry fandom"? By "both permutations" (40) do you mean 'entertainment' and 'athletic' mascots? I've corrected that; the citations that follow there are not really elucidative besides Plante et al p.211. For (70) those websites are included in (39), which I duplicated in the paragraph for clarity. For (106), good point, fixed that.
3. Sources about the furry fandom and culture outside the US is very hard to find. Much of it comes from self-published or unreliable sources, like Medium. I added a little bit about non-US conventions, but there is not much I can really do here. Regarding modern history; I did a lot of searching around and found a little bit from The Guardian but not much else. Keywords are hard to identify. There's a ton of clickbait out there that I couldn't use.
4. --
5. --
6. The FurryMUCK image is placed next to a paragraph that introduces the idea of the MUCK, as its placement later on would clash with other photos. The image with the caption describing "gamers" is supported by the neighboring paragraph, which states Many furries find overlap in their interests with other hobbies, such as anime and manga, video games, and music, though most gravitate towards "furry media" when possible. I don't see why the sparkledog image is inappropriate? Ideally it would be placed next to the last paragraph, where the term is introduced, but the content isn't really objectionable - it's a character that was drawn for use on Wiktionary. I have removed the Kemono image since it wasn't really relevant.

-- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables):

   MoS is followed in all relevant cases, pretty much, but the lead appears to be missing some things such as occupations that have substantial chunks. Some awkward grammatical things: first name is used at places where last name should be, " is generally agreed upon as originating", "As of 2023, the most popular furry website has become" (should be was), "The general concept of anthropomorphism, and its", "most of those furries surveyed are advertised to" (should be found, maybe?), and several others.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   One unreffed clause - "were nominated for the "Best Dramatic Series" category." Reference section is well-cited and well-laid out. 41% copyvio, which is quite high - mostly unrephrasable phrases, but I'm fairly certain there's some rephrasing that can be done there. Spot-checked some citations: 168 and 169 were fine. 129 and 130 were fine. 28, 51, and 62-64 were fine. 66, 67, 68, and 87-89 were fine. However, 40 doesn't mention both permutations, 71 doesn't seem to be mentioning all the possibilities, and 106 appears to be mentioning the autism rate among children and not among everyone.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Mentions of art are minimal, and charity is really dated. Also, all the culture here appears to be pretty much american, and it looks like there's some stuff outside the US of the same culture so anything to add from there that'd be relevant? Modern history is also basically nonexistent after the 2000s. The Ursa Major award section is also probably dated? everything listed there is from 2020 or 2021. Stays focused, though.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Highly contentious topic but quite good at keeping a balanced and encyclopedic tone and PoV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No signs of instability.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):

   Images make sense in context, but some issues - FurryMUCK doesn't appear to be mentioned in-text at the place where the image is, the sparkledog image is quite strange and doesn't really add to the page in fact making it more confusing (plus the image is literally called sparkledog wikibomination, that's a bit of a tipoff that it's not the best image to show as an example of one). The Kemono fursuit appears to not be with any context as to what it is or why it's there, and I also don't see any context for the gamers image.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: