He-Man as a gay icon

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring this up to FA status at some point, hopefully, by the end of 2024. The whole process started back in 2021, and since then, the page has passed a good article review, and recently was copyedited.

One issue when it comes to working on this page is that there really isn't another article on Wikipedia that is similar; all the other "X as gay icon" pages being about real people. This makes it difficult to figure out exactly what more needs to be done with the article and where; or if anything else can be done at all.

Hopefully, the structure of the article is proper and correct, but if not, that is definitely one area where comments would be appreciated. Moreover, a review of the sources and whether they are "high-quality" or "reliable" would be similarly helpful.

Thank you for any comments. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aoba47

I am primarily leaving this up as a placeholder. I think this is a very interesting topic. I honestly know nothing about He-Man so this will really be an outside perspective. If I have not posted any comments by this time next week, please ping me as a reminder. I do have a few quick comments, which I will list below:

• I notice a fair amount of items are not linked in the first instance in the article; these are: He-Man, Masters of the Universe, and Mattel. I think it would be beneficial to look through the article again to see if there are any other instances.
• Make sure that the images use WP:ALT text.

• Done, although I never know what to write with these things. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• To be fair, it is not the clearest thing in the world and would honestly benefit from further discussion. I think a lot of editors are confused on how to write WP:ALT text as different people look at it differently. Aoba47 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I would also avoid having words in all caps in the citation titles, such as in Citation 9 and Citation 48. Acronyms and such should be kept in all caps for obvious reasons, but I would avoid keep how certain citations use caps in their titles for emphasis.

• Done.

• Citation 35 should have an English translation for the title. Any non-English citation title should have a translation so if there are any other instances of this, I would make sure to add this.

• Done. It seems that Italian source was the only non-English one.

• The citations seems inconsistent in using both the work/website and the publisher parameters. A majority of the citations seem to use the publisher parameter, but there are instances such as Citation 5 and Citation 30 in which it is not used. With this kind of thing, it is really important to be consistent.

• Done. Besides those two, I found one other newspaper where I hadn't included the publisher. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for not doing a full review right now. I am trying to be more mindful of how much time I spend on Wikipedia. Best of luck with this peer review. I believe I've said this before so apologies for repeating myself, but I do find your work on Wikipedia, particularly around LGBT topics, to be very inspiring. Even though my username is based on a character from a Boys' Love game (Dramatical Murder), it is not an area that I have done a ton of work on myself. Have a happy new year! Aoba47 (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I would start the lead with a clearer sentence about what the article is about (i.e. the queer readings of He-Man). For instance, the Stucky (fandom) article has a clearer sentence about its focus. I do appreciate the context provided in the lead, and I do believe it should be kept. However, the first paragraph seems more focused on He-Man in general. I do not think this first paragraph should be solely devoted to background information as it does not clearly identify the focus of this article. I would use a clearer first sentence, then transition into the information about the character in general. Maybe something like: (He-Man, a fictional sword and sorcery superhero, has attracted queer interpretations by academics and cultural critics has become a gay icon.)? I am not saying that is the best wording, but I think the lead could start in a clearer way. Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have a comment for this part, (From 1983 to 1985, the animated television series He-Man and the Masters of the Universe aired,). I am not sure about separating the years from "aired". It reads a bit off to me. Maybe something like, (The animated television series He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, which aired from 1983 to 1985, focused on on the character and established), instead.

•  Done

• I would include the year that He-Man was first introduced as a character to the lead. The lead currently mentions the years for the show, but having a clearer understanding of when He-Man as a character was introduced would be best, especially since later sentences focus on how this subtext has always been a part of his character. I would also include this information in the article itself.

• The source referring the comics thankfully also included the year. Added that to both the lede and body.

• I think it would be worthwhile to link Man-At-Arms in the lead. It is a redirect, but it does redirect directly to the part of the list about the character and would give readers further background information if they are interested in learning more about him.

•  Done

• I have a comment for this part, (with his first appearance being in minicomics packed with the toys). I would avoid that sentence structure, i.e. having "with X verb-ing", since that is often brought up in FAC reviews as an example of bad prose. I do not have a strong opinion on it one way or the other myself, but I would revise it out from the article to best prepare it for a FAC review. Another instance of this is the following, (with gay clone culture requiring a muscular physique to "manoeuvre successfully").
• For this part, (first aired in September 1983), I would just use the year as I do not think the month adds anything.

•  Done

• I am not really sure what this part, (strive to protect the secrets of Castle Grayskull from his clutches). It is likely because I have not read or seen anything related to He-Man, but I think further clarification would be beneficial here.
• Would it be helpful to include an image of Prince Adam alongside that of He-Man? There is a discussion about Adam's appearance so an image may be helpful in better illustrating that point, but I do understand keeping non-free media usage to a minimal.
• Was there any discussions on how He-Man is portrayed as muscular to an extreme level? Even the cosplayer, who is quite muscular, does not come close to the cartoon image. Maybe it's just because I am sensitive to this kind of thing, as I have heard a lot of not so great things about body image and expectations in the past from within the gay community, but this seems to be a very heightened and stylized version of the male body so I was curious if this was discussed outside of the gay clone culture.

• Just to add some further clarification here, I was curious if the He-Man's more extreme muscular appearance was discussed in the context of fetish or body ideals within the gay community. I just wanted to add this part as on a second look, I was not sure if I was really clear in my ramblings. Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I understand what you mean. It's possible that the Cornelius source may discuss that a bit more, but I don't have access to it anymore. Still, the section does have passages of Cornelius discussing how, if not to the gay community as a whole, He-Man's physique does at least relate to Castro clone culture and how it fetishized the male muscular body which He-Man has. I skimmed over one book source that is available, and I may be able to include that somewhere. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thank you for the response. I will read that section again soon. It could be that everything is already there, and I just overlooked it somehow so I will double-check on that the next time I read the article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The article repeatedly says that He-Man does not have any romantic interest or relationships with women, but did any of these sources mention Teela as I thought there was a romance between her and Adam/He-Man? Also, do any of the sources touch on Evil-Lyn is sometimes shown as romantically interested in Skeletor?

• I checked, and none of them mention a romance with Teela or Evil-Lyn's interest in Skeletor. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have a brief question about this part, (has also called He-Man—alongside She-Ra— a gay icon). Would it be worthwhile to add a brief note to provide further context on She-Ra as a gay icon? It is kind of just shoehorned in at the moment so further background information may be helpful.

• The main reason I also included She-Ra is because Stevenson himself referenced both of them as gay icons. I could add some additional info in a note about the show being a reboot of the original She-Ra cartoon where Adora is He-Man's long-lost sister. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I will leave that choice up to you. I could see it being helpful, but on second thought, I could also see it being unnecessary and distracting as the article is not really about that character. Aoba47 (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think it would be best to spell out NSFW for readers who are unfamiliar with the acronym.

•  Done

• I am uncertain about this part, (According to Erika Scheimer, the franchise's voice actor and openly-lesbian daughter of Filmation co-founder Lou Scheimer). It read a bit odd. I think that is because there is so much put in the descriptor that it comes across a bit overly wordy. On a similar note, I think you can just say "lesbian" as I do not think "openly" is necessary as that part could be understood.

• Revised.

• The second paragraph of the "Response from Mattel and insiders" section has two sentences in a row with some variation of "In 2018". I would avoid that as that kind of repetition makes the prose less engaging.

• Revised.

• I believe more context would be needed for the Laughing Prince Adam figure. How does the figure reference these gay readings?
• Apologies in advance, but I would be consistent if the citation titles are using title case or not. For instance, "is" is capitalized in Citation 34, but not in Citation 6. Also a word like "man" is not capitalized in Citation 31. I was only recently made aware of this kind of stuff in a recent-ish FAC, and while it is a pain in the neck, it is important to be consistent with these kinds of things.
• I am not sure about the "Further reading" link. I personally would never use a Master of Arts thesis in a Wikipedia article. I know that people have different opinions about that on here. WP:SCHOLARSHIP seems rather undecided about it. I have done a M.A. thesis, and I can tell you from personal experience that the level of oversight and review varies very wildly to the point that I would never use one myself. I think the following line from WP:SCHOLARSHIP is the most helpful here: (If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties.)

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article several more times just to make sure that I have done my due diligence as a reviewer. Just as a clarification question, but have you reached out to any of the other editors who have participated in past peer reviews or in the GANs? Obviously, you do not have to, but it may be nice to get as much feedback as possible. Either way, have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Would it be worthwhile to link wet dreams in the "object of all our childhood wet dreams" quote?

Aside from the comments that I have already posted above, I believe this should be everything from me. Best of luck with the peer review. I hope more editors come over to review the article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:FAC peer review sidebar

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]