Talk:Larries/GA1

GA review

Passed. MidnightAlarm (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Jolielover (talk · contribs) 15:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: MidnightAlarm (talk · contribs) 21:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hey, I'll tackle this review. So far, can confirm that the article is stable and all images are relevant, captioned, and under suitable licenses.

If I have any questions or concerns as I review, I'll bring them up here; feel free to answer while I'm still reviewing or wait until I'm done, whatever works for you. MidnightAlarm (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig copyvio results are yellow, but what the tool is catching are direct quotes that are properly cited in the article. No issues identified with external links. MidnightAlarm (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer comments

Prose

This doesn't include MOS compliance or (except for #3) anything related to sources, but I took a pass through the article to review the prose and noted some issues. First, though, I made some edits as I went; I focused on minor changes for grammar and clarity, but please do take a look to ensure I didn't make any changes you object to.

Lead:

~~1. A fundamental part of this conspiracy theory is that the two [...] have been closeted by their management company~~

~~I don't think "closet" can be used as a verb in this sense; see Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary. Can you rephrase?~~

Not the nominator, but I'll reply anyway. Fwiw, closeted is on Wiktionary, and in scholarly literature:[1]. That may be more in adjective form, but does it matter that much? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my point: in the sense of non-disclosure of sexual identity, it's an adjective, not a verb. I do think it matters in the context of a GAN because using it as a verb is non-grammatical, and correct grammar is explicitly part of the first GA criterion. MidnightAlarm (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can change it to "are closeted"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History:

~~2. As early as 2012, Tomlinson admitted that the popularity of the theory was negatively affecting the way he and Styles behaved in public~~

~~I think "admitted" creates a (minor) POV issue here, and MOS:CLAIM recommends against using it. "Said" or "stated" would be more neutral.~~

Good point, fixed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~3. The most notable manifestation of this belief came in the form of "Rainbow Bondage Bears"~~

I can imagine someone contesting the "most notable" part of this. Something like "One notable manifestation..." would be better, and also better-supported by the sources. The Southerton & McCann source says the rainbow bears are "one of the central stories in the Larry canon that operates as 'proof'" (bolding mine).

Fixed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, @MidnightAlarm, do you want us to ~~strike through~~ the "done" stuff? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I can strike through them when I double-check the fixes. Thanks for asking, though! (Also, just as an FYI, I'm not ignoring the replies for the ones I haven't struck through yet; I need to come back and look at those later. I've been unexpectedly busy for the last couple of days.) MidnightAlarm (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm expecting nominator @Jolielover to deal with/comment on anything I haven't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~4. Notably, the faked suicides were constructed both in response to the film and in response to anti-Larries using the documentary as an excuse to criticize Larry behaviors.~~

~~Rephrasing is needed here to clarify the following:~~

~~Did the rumours say that the alleged suicides occurred because of both the film and the response, or did people invent the rumours in response to both the film and the response?~~

~~Were there really faked suicides (suggesting someone staged a death in some way), or only false rumours of suicides?~~
- This is the source:[2] I don't easily find support for that sentence (but, no actual faked suicides), I think we can just remove the sentence. "in response to the film" goes without saying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~5. To explain Styles behaving this way while Tomlinson has explicitly stated he is straight, some Larries have constructed a martyrdom narrative for Tomlinson.~~

I think this should be rephrased, or context should be added, to make it clearer why Larries would feel the need to find a justification for this. (I know it's because Styles's behaviour contradicts the conspiracy theory tenet that Styles and Tomlinson are both being forced to stay closeted...but for the sake of clear and understandable prose, it would be good to make that explicit. Especially since we're in WP:FRINGE territory with this article.)

Does [3] help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content:

~~6. The core evidence of the conspiracy is often introduced through video clips that frame glances, touches, or other interpersonal interactions as romantic gestures.~~

For the sake of clarity, this should be rephrased to emphasize that these are things that the conspiracy theorists point to as evidence of their claims, not actual evidence of a romantic relationship. The preceding section (history) does a great job laying that out, but as this is a new major section, I think it bears repeating.

~~7. including femslash, which depicts Larry as gender-bent lesbians.~~

"Gender-bent" means something different in the context of fanfiction than what is described in the linked article (Gender bender), and not everyone who reads this article will understand what it means. This should be rephrased. Honestly, I think just "...depicts Larry as lesbians" would provide all the information needed.

Fixed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~8. One former Larry, when interviewed about this type of censorship,~~

~~I don't think the word "censorship" is appropriate here. It's not really censorship, just very pointed content curation.~~ MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)4[reply]

MOS, POV, broadness, focus

I'm happy with the MOS compliance, broadness, and focus of the article, and it maintains NPOV throughout. Like Rusalkii, I'd ideally like to see the lead expanded, but I think the current lead is acceptable for a GA; it's a brief, accessible, adequately cited summary of the most important points in the article, and nothing in it is given undue weight. As such, I'm not requiring that it be expanded, just noting that that would a way to further improve the article going forward. Similarly, the article layout conforms to MOS:LAYOUT as it stands and I won't require any changes there for this GA, but for future improvements I'd suggest trying to merge the Content and Ideology sections as I'm not sure they need to be two separate major sections. MidnightAlarm (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Article has reflist, suitable inline citations, and no OR. I completed a spot-check of the following sources against the text, all of which checked out: 2, 5, 17, 21, 30, 39, 46, 59.

For the sake of other reviewers who may be look at this article in the future, I want to note that there are a few citations to the Daily Dot, which is iffy for WP:RS. WP:DAILYDOT indicates there's no current consensus as to the Daily Dot's reliability as a source and recommends caution when using it to support claims that could be challenged. Many of the claims cited to the Daily Dot are unobjectionable (e.g., places where it's used as an example of what critics have said about Larries). There are two claims cited to the Daily Dot that are more contentious (By 2014, Larries believed that Tomlinson and Styles were sending secret messages directly to them and Since the conception of the conspiracy theory, Larries have harassed Styles and Tomlinson, their friends and family, and journalists covering Larries), but as both claims also have citations to more reliable sources either in the same spot or elsewhere in the article, I'm not concerned about them.

And with that the review is complete. I'll go ahead and pass it. Great work, @Jolielover and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång! MidnightAlarm (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by meddling

Gråbergs Gråa Sång let me know this review was happening because I was working on Johnlock a few months ago. I've made some tweaks to the text you should change back if you like, and have a few comments (which obviously should not be considered part of the GA review, so feel free to ignore or deprioritize). Rusalkii (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Tomlinson and Styles are closeted mainly because of their management company, Modest Management, who controlled their social media. Modest promoted masculine pictures of the pair, and made Styles the "womanizer". The pair were contractually prevented to be gay, and were provided fake girlfriends" -> I assume this requires some kind of "Larries believe that" or "In fanfiction," introduction.
- Added "Other belief include that..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Harassment" seems like a weird fit under the "Ideology" heading
- Moved this section to "History", at least it fits better there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is very short, can it be expanded? (I hate writing leads too :) )
- It's short, but I think it's a good summary of the essential points: CT, old, still going strong, subjects of CT complained. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MidnightAlarm: hey, sorry for the delay. Some personal issues. Thank you @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: for your work so far - is it possible for you to get some co-nom credit? I nominated this article when I was quite new and not fully aware of all GA norms and procedures (yes, quite dumb, but oh well). Anyway, addressing everything else:

censorship -> content filtering
core evidence paragraph: rephrased it to be clearer that it is their belief, not actual evidence
closeted -> "sexual identities deliberately concealed"; I suppose this is clearer and gets rid of the metaphor, which international readers may not understand.
crazy about one direction: at the time of the nom, the film did not have its own page. seeing as it now does (i created it a few months ago), i've trimmed down the excessive context and background of the film and focus just on Larries. I've rephrased the sentence you brought up - I hope that's fine now

Let me know if it's all good or if I've missed something, thanks! jolielover♥talk 17:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article, if it gets a GA-stamp I will certainly consider that credit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolielover No worries at all! As you can see, I've been a bit delayed coming back to this too. Thank you and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång both for the edits made so far, and @Rusalkii for the helpful input. I'm happy with the prose as it stands now and I'll get to tackling the rest of this review ASAP. :) MidnightAlarm (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.