 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about FBoy Island. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about FBoy Island at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from FBoy Island appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 August 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know nomination
edit- 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 Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- ... that FBOY Island pits three female contestants to identify twenty-four men as either womanizers or nice guys?
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
ALT1:... that the expletive for male womanizer is never used in FBOY Island?
Sources: Slate, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter
ALT2:... that when reviewing FBOY Island, Variety's Caroline Framke, thought that "[i]t didn’t take long for 'FBoy Island' to make me feel like my brain was leaking out my ears, drip by stupefied drip," calling the use of the abbreviated term fboys "one of [ HBO Max's ] most baffling, annoying mysteries."
Source: Variety
Created by Psycharpax (talk). Self-nominated at 16:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
Article is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, neutral and plagiarism-free. ALT0 is interesting and cited in article. While ALT1 is interesting, I think it may be confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the show as they wouldn't expect it to be about womanisers. ALT2 at 290+ characters and, therefore, too long. Nominator has no prior noms so no QPQ needed. Pamzeis (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
"fboy" = "fuckboy"
editA little Googling makes it very obvious that fboy is common slang for fuckboy, yet nothing in the article mentions it. Is this an "encyclopaedia" that favours "polite language" about fact and information? Is this because it's US-ian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.37.217 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- No. It’s probably just uncited and needs a reliable cite despite being completely obvious Dronebogus (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Tag
edit
On 16:07, 1 February 2022 User:Joe Roe added the {{Undisclosed paid}} tag with the edit summary Added {{Undisclosed paid}} tag: Off-wiki evidence. Please do not remove before reviewing for notability, promotional tone, etc.
However, it's been 1½ years. And Joe never added {{Connected contributor (paid)}} here on talk.
I'm removing the template - if it hasn't had any effect so far, it never will. Feel free to reapply, but please bring more specific concerns next time. CapnZapp (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- @CapnZapp: I think I was quite clear and specific in that edit summary? The undisclosed paid editing was based on off-wiki evidence I reviewed in my capacity as a functionary and (at the time) CheckUser. I can't add {{Connected contributor (paid)}} to this talk page because that would out the editor. The article needs to be reviewed for neutrality by an independent editor, and until that happens the tag should stay. – Joe (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry but what is clear to you isn't to everybody else. "Off-wiki" evidence can just mean... nothing. Baseless accusations. You never said anything about FUNCT or CU. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, I have looked over the article and can't find any egregious examples of promotional or ad-copy language. Since you might not consider me an independent editor (I found the article just the other day, but have made edits since) I won't actually edit the article. But in my opinion it isn't less neutral than many other articles covering similar topics, so I would just remove the tag if it were up to me. In fact, since I don't have access to your damning evidence I don't see a point of the tag (certainly not 18 months later). CapnZapp (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you haven't been paid and you've verified there are no problems of NPOV or source misrepresentation, please feel free to remove the tag. In the meantime, the tag serves to notify readers that there is a potential (or likelihood) that the article is less than neutral, and remind editors that a review is still needed. I'm sorry that my edit summary wasn't clear to you – obviously there's a degree of deliberate ambiguity where other editors' nonpublic personal information is concerned. – Joe (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)