Template:Did you know nominations/Queer manicure

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Queer manicure

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that some queer people wear shorter nails on their middle and index fingers to allow for easier manual sex and to express a queer identity?

• Source: Preston, Devon. "Meet the Femmicure: Where Queer Nail Art Meets Functionality", PopSugar, 18 August 2022. Retrieved 4 July 2024.

• Reviewed:

Created by Orchastrattor (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Orchastrattor (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC).

• Not a review, but Popsugar is red on WP:UPSD. What makes it reliable?--Launchballer 11:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Launchballer: LA covers the same claim, PS was just the citation used in the article, I can update the article to match that instead. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I was going to say that PS should come out together, although checking WP:RSN, there isn't really a consensus, and this isn't really contentious. I'd be inclined to let it slide but I'll let a reviewer adjudicate on it. Full review needed.--Launchballer 09:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You could practically cut the source without having to remove much of anything from the article (terminology of "party fingers" aside), so I don't think it's something to be especially concerned about. Sourcing the DYK to the LA Times instead does seem prudent, but I don't think it's a dealbreaker either way. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

References

I'll take this; it's my first time doing a DYK review, so if I mess anything up I do apologize. The article is new enough, long enough, has no apparent copyvio or neutrality issues, and the citations all seem fine barring the Popsugar situation that as stated isn't overly concerning. QPQ isn't necessary. I think the hook needs work though. Whilst the core of the fact is clearly established by the sources and obviously interesting, the wording isn't sufficiently clear. I understand the usage of "queer" for inclusiveness, but as it currently reads absolutely no association with sapphism or women whatsoever is implied. Any reader coming across this would be left to think gay men, asexuals, or straight transgender individuals cut their nails short as lesbian women. Given the entire point of the topic is its connection to lesbian and sapphic culture, that is a fundamental issue. Beyond this, I have some comments about the article itself. I'm not sure if I'm perhaps stepping beyond what is expected of a DYK review here, but at worst they can't hurt:

• The article is named "Queer manicure", but the opening sentence treats "Lesbian manicure" as the primary name and puts the former term in the parentheses. I again understand why there's a flux between terms (anecdotally, I always knew them as just "lesbian nails") and the sources seem to go back and forth on what to call them, but it seems sensible the body and title agree on which one to lead with.
• I'm not convinced "party fingers" is terminology of sufficient note to be included here. It's mentioned a single time in one source (in a direct quote, no less), and no search combination of "party fingers" with relevant terms like manicure, penetration, lesbian, or queer seems to bring up anything remotely relevant to the subject (concerningly, that last one brought up this very article). The second use in the article, "party fingers" style of manicure, makes up an association between the "party fingers" terminology and the manicure itself never invoked in the cited source (which only ever treated it as a term for the fingers).
• Based on my reading of the article (and granted, I know nothing about Euphoria), I'm not sure the statement about Natalie Minerva as correct. The article reads as if she did a lesbian manicure for the show Euphoria, but the source seems to say that she was the nail artist for Euphoria and, separately, gave Barbie Ferreira a lesbian manicure which was posted to Instagram.

Most of these are pretty small nitpicks, and I don't think I'd hold the nomination back over all of them, but it would be nice to see them addressed. Either way though, it's very nice to see an article on this classic piece of sapphic culture created and I'd love to see this on the front page once the hook and article issues can be ironed out. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Orchastrattor: Please address the above. @LittleLazyLass: This is a very long review for a DYK. Can some of this be moved to the article's talk page, or fixed yourself? Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yea sorry I've had a busy week or so, I'll get to it soon! Orchastrattor (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@LittleLazyLass: 1) I think there's already a precedent for conflicts between COMMONNAME and best name being resolved like this. I was also introduced to the concept as "lesbian nails", however that would already have to be swapped out for "lesbian manicure" to preserve the site's formal tone, at which point we might as well just go with "queer manicure" to keep the topic name as straightforward and inclusive as it can be. 2) I'll be honest I the article just uses "party fingers" in the way that it does so that it doesn't have to keep saying "middle-and-index style" to indicate that particular subtopic, its distinct from the parent concept but doesn't have its own defined name so "party fingers" is just the least clunky way of referring to it. 3) Maybe, I'm not familiar with the show either and the wording could go either way so I've just changed the sentence to avoid the issue altogether. Orchastrattor (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

For example the 1808-1813 Kingdom of Spain has an article titled Spain under Joseph Bonaparte, but the actual text of the lead simply refers to it as "Napoleonic Spain" because the level of formality necessary for the title isn't the same as that necessary for the text. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that some lesbians and queer people wear shorter nails on their middle and index fingers to allow for easier manual sex and to express a queer identity?

I've removed the points I'd consider to be minor nitpicks and left a couple I do think should be addressed as they concern the factuality of the article. Apologies for going overboard. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I still don't love the party fingers usage, but it'd be silly to hold back the DYK over it in isolation. Hook looks good now, so I'd give this a stamp of approval. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)