Furry fandom was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I've reverted this edit, since it strongly misrepresents what the source actually says. The summary of "Disney, which has used its lawyers against furries for decades" is an amalgam of "For decades, [Disney] had been dealing with [furries]" and "By now, Disney lawyers know how to deal with that crowd". You've got to interpret the source in very specific ways to read that Disney therefore has been suing furries for decades, since there are plenty of other ways to "deal with" a fandom. Not to mention that, if that were true, there ought to be quite the number of primary sources available out there to support this. Personally, I am not aware of Disney ever suing a furry specifically, but I might be wrong on that one. But the idea of Disney having done so regularly for decades is pretty silly, to put it mildly, and is pretty much coming out of nowhere, with no other source I could find coming even remotely close to supporting such an extraordinary claim. I dare say that a random Cats review should not be the best source available for such a claim.
On top of that, the source mentions that it is likely that furries may embrace the new Cats film, whereas in reality, furries have roundly mocked and rejected the film just like everyone else. I'm only mentioning that to point out that the author of this review does not seem very knowledgeable about furries in the first place, making them a pretty poor source for this article in any case. --Conti|✉ 12:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Are there any sources available yet as to what "the furry reaction" has been? I've heard a lot of mainstream reviews, none positive, and quite a few of them have said, "Awful film, but the furries will like it", with variations from a more positive "at least the furries will" to a more sneering "only furries will". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
No reliable sources, just the reactions on my Twitter feed. Which are almost universally "If furries had made this, the characters would actually look good." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so, no, and I don't expect there to be any. "How furries react to film X" isn't exactly newsworthy, after all. All there is is anecdotal evidence, like popular twitter posts of furries mocking or disavowing the film. Which makes this a bit of an odd situation, I guess. The joke of furries being the only audience that will like the film is pretty obvious, it's just not supported by reality at this point. Not sure what to do about that. --Conti|✉ 16:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
As further evidence, I would point to the many movie reviews of furry films that have been posted to the furry website  over the years, which run the gamut from highly favorable to highly unfavorable. Zootopia got highly positive reviews, Alpha and Omega got mixed reviews, and Norm of the North got hammered, to name three. I think this pretty well demonstrates that having furry characters is not by any stretch a free pass for a film being liked by furry fans. mwalimu59 (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that my edit misrepresented the article; WP:SYNTH is not needed to take away from it that, according to its author, Disney has used lawyers against furries for decades. I do not know of other cites supporting this (not that I'd ever looked into the topic before), but I also don't know of any saying otherwise, say examples of Disney expressing friendship/support for furries. (Come to think of it, the well-known rule at Disney parks against attendees dressing in costume can be seen as anti-furries.)
Based on the specificity of the incident recounted, it is reasonable to think that the author is making a more serious point than a throwaway joke about furries. Lawyers can act against furries without filing lawsuits; say, sending a cease and desist letter. Given the absence for now of other reliable sources saying one way or another, summarily rejecting this based on what you admit is personal experience/knowledge (or lack thereof) is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ylee (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you aren't presenting a coherent argument. I mean-
I do not know of other cites supporting this (not that I'd ever looked into the topic before), but I also don't know of any saying otherwise
-just shows that you don't have any reliable sources. The author makes an offhand comment that "Disney lawyers know how to deal with that crowd..." but does not say what they have done. That's why it's SYNTH to assert your statement. It's also hypocritical for you to state summarily rejecting this based on what you admit is personal experience/knowledge (or lack thereof) when you yourself have nothing but your personal knowledge (or lack thereof) to support your own argument.
All you do have is an anecdote presented with no evidence in a review of a non-Disney film. The most we can say is that it's this author's opinion, but I'd argue even that is undue weight, given it's an assertion without any corroboration. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Writing that their lawyers know how to deal with furries and writing that Disney has been "dealing with" furries for decades does not mean that Disney has been using lawyers "against" furries for decades. It implies that they are willing to use lawyers if they need to, but even that is implied and not explicit. Turning this into an explicit "Disney has been using lawyers against furries for decades" is an extraordinary statement that requires some sources that are a little more thorough than an introductory joke of a scathing film review. And, again, if it were true, there should be far more sources out there making the same claims. There are not.
As for Disney and furries, here's one of many articles pointing to Disney marketing the film Zootopia directly to furries. Joaquin Baldwin, one of the animators of Zootopia, was the guest of honor of Anthrocon in 2016. I very much doubt that Disney would allow either of those things to happen if they truly were to sic their lawyers on furries for decades due to some desire to stay as far away as possible from them, as the Cats review claims. As such, I highly doubt that - as the Cats review claims - the co-directors of Zootopia "went rogue" when they dressed in costume at some convention. That seems entirely in line with all the other sources that make it clear that Disney is friendly towards furries, not hostile. Which, in turn, makes me doubt the author's knowledge of the entire relationship between furries and Disney in general. Which, in turn, confirms my opinion that that entire introductory paragraph in that review is just a throwaway joke about furries that should not be taken seriously. --Conti|✉ 13:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)