Talk:He-Man as a gay icon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 20:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article for the January 2022 GAN backlog drive. If you haven't already signed up, please feel free to join in! Although QPQ is not required, if you're feeling generous, I also have a list of GA nominations of my own right here.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Background and homosexual reading

• "the gayest show that has ever been on TV" is clearly hyperbolic, from reading the reference
• This section feels fairly unfocused and reads more like an abstract (which is what the lede should be) than an actual background section
• A clearer background section would give more information into the television airing history of He-Man, providing context for the queer readings further down

Queer-coded nature and gay subtext

Appearance

• "David Chlopecki argues that"
• I don't think indicative of the AIDS epidemic that ravaged the LGBTQ community has to be a direct quote, I think it can be paraphrased
• "AIDS epidemic" should also be linked to Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS
• AIDS should also be linked to HIV/AIDS
• outfit resembles those of some subject/verb disagreement
• "and including a" → "and includes a"
• "phallic" should be linked to Phallus
• It's unclear how both the pageboy haircut and the "magical girl" transformation are indicative of He-Man's queer coding

With other men

• He-Man's relationship with Man-at-Arms has also been acknowledged as being homoerotic. How?

References

• Per WP:MEDIUM, Medium should not be used as a source outside of subject-matter expertise or WP:ABOUTSELF reasons. The author only appears to have a BFA and tends to blog about his feelings, so I wouldn't consider it reliable for queer studies.
• Several "articles" used are actually clickbait listicles based on the author or community's personal feelings rather than actual sociological or cinematic analysis, such as:
  • 18 Childhood Cartoon Characters Who Were Totally Queer
  • 25 Cartoon Characters Who Should Just Come Out Already
  • Queer Heroes: 15 Superheroes Who Are Gay Icons
• The Cosmic Book News source is homophobic bait, with the article repeatedly using "woke" as if it's a death knell for a television program. The YouTuber being quoted, Grace Randolph, has also repeatedly spread misinformation.
• The Johns Hopkins News-Letter is an op-ed by an undergraduate student and the only thing he's ever written. Hardly an expert

The BuzzFeed article is also clickbaity satire

General comments

I am going to stop my review here. While looking at just one section, I was concerned by the use of listicles in the references, so I jumped down to the reference section and found that many being used were either satire, opinion, or clickbait. Now, the good article criteria don't expect writers to create sources out of thin air, so I can't actually require scholarly sources that don't exist, but the fact that some are used means that those sources do exist, and that's why the use of listicles etc. is especially concerning. Some of the articles are also good, such as the Men's Health one, but you need to cut through a lot of chaff first.

I am also concerned by the apparent lack of focus in some sections, and lack of explanation with regards to things such as how his pageboy haircut is queer and what the relationship with Man-at-Arms is. Additionally, in an article about queer readings of He-Man, it feels somewhat remiss not to include at least something about the openly queer relationship at the heart of She-Ra.

In conclusion, I'm going to take the bold step of failing this article, which I believe has a right to be on Wikipedia, but which needs to undergo serious edits and a closer look at the sourcing being used. — GhostRiver 21:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@GhostRiver: Regarding the lack of references to She-Ra, I would think it wouldn't need to be said given that it's kind of obvious, but the article is about He-Man as a character. Not the original cartoon, not the entire franchise. But about queer analyses of the character He-Man, and his status as a gay icon.

Regarding the use of sources, I can definitely agree that some are... well, shit. I admit that, and I'll gladly remove them. But I don't understand why some of them like Comic Book Resources or NewNowNext are necessarily "bad" articles. If there was an article out there that was essentially a list of gay icons, and it discussed how Madonna or Cher are gay icons, does said article need to provide an entire analysis of how and why they are gay icons in order to be viewed as acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

PanagiotisZois Well, to answer your question, yes, there would need to be some type of analysis beyond the tongue-in-cheek listicles that you've provided. Look at the language these articles use: But even calling himself He-Man is the equivalent of "masc for masc"—methinks he doth protest too much in the NewNowNext source. Prince Adam isn't really fooling anyone with those lavender yoga pants, furry underwear and tight shirt in CBR. These are sarcastic observations made by an SEO-savvy millennial looking to maximize clicks and other forms of social media engagement. You can't seriously compare that to something like this in-depth BBC piece about Judy Garland. One is taking the topic seriously, the other is mocking gay stereotypes. — GhostRiver 23:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)