Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Park (season 1)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:56, 25 April 2011 [1].

South Park (season 1)

[edit]

South Park (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This season "doesn't just push the envelope; it knocks it off the table" and was seen as "coming pretty damn close" to being a "perfect" television series season". I am nominating this for featured article because I think it passes wp:FA?, and hopefully all the issues can be fixed easily. Nergaal (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues

  • "Business Wire" is not a journal and should not be italicised
  • Consistency required over provision of book publisher locations
  • Page numbers should be given for journals and newspapers where there is no online link
  • Give web publisher names, not website names. Thus the publisher of ref. 43 is TCM or Turner Classic Movies, not "tcmuk.tv" The publisher of 61 appears to be the Montreal Gazette, not "communities.Canada.com"
  • Who is responsible for http://www.currentfilm.com/dvdreviews4/southparks1dvd.html and why is it considered reliable?

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Image and deadlink check

  • Good - Article has two images; one properly licensed on Flick and another with good non-free rationale.
  • Good - No deadlinks and CorenBot shows no plagiarism.--NortyNort (Holla)

Oppose on prose and MoS issues at this time.

  • Article needs a thorough copy-editing for grammar (ex. "It resembled the style of the later series more closely became popular and widely shared, both by duplication and over the Internet"), flow (ex. "Television critics gave the season mixed reviews, ranging from assessing the show as to being so offensive..."), and clarity (ex. "prompting him to start using a bodybuilding supplement (Weight Gain 4000) that makes him grow fatter instead of stronger" - it's not clear whether he knew the supplement would make him fatter)
    • I think I've fixed these. Are there any others? Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Some further examples: "The site made the episodes available for download $2.50 for a two-day download and $4.95 for a permanent copy"; "It was one of the first experiments with making television videos available for download, making South Park one of the first television shows made legally available on the Internet" - very repetitive; "when Internet buzz began to generate about the two original shorts". Please note that these are examples only - the article really needs a thorough copy-edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed these. I am not sure how fair is that conclusion, since the article has been repeatedly improved through a FAC, two PRs (1 and 2), and a few people not directly involved in the article. Yes, the prose can always be improved upon, but are you sure it is not as big of a deal (in the current state) as you make it sound like? Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two discussed filming a three-minute short film involving a boy who befriended a talking feces named Mr. Hankey...Parker and Stone originally conceived the idea of a South Park-like show with four children characters, but with a talking stool named Mr. Hankey as the show's main protagonist" - I'm confused; the latter is phrased as an original idea, but it seems to be a continuation of the former
  • MoS edits needed - numbers under 10 should be spelled out, check dash/hyphen use, etc
  • WP:OVERLINK - don't link terms more than once, especially not in close proximity, and don't link common terms at all. Examples: CableACE Award, Warner Home Video are repeated; diarrhea and Ethiopia are common enough to not link. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think "diarrhea and Ethiopia" should both be linked, especially here. How much knowledge of Ethiopia can we assume in the typical reader of an article on South Park? I always link all but about 20 countries - starting at Belgium and Argentina perhaps. No doubt knowledge of diarrhea is more widespread, but perhaps not how to spell it, which is different in the UK btw, perhaps itself enough reason to link. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose seems rather a cookie-cutter job. Prose does need a good going over - too many commas opening a clause that are missing one to close it. Spot the "which" (not "who") referring to persons. I'm not going to quote some examples so you just say "Ok, fixed those!" - it needs a full going-over by some one who can do this well. No coverage at all of international tv sales, except a mention of Canada. The article almost merits a "worldwide" tag. "Reception" section not very deep - coverage in the main South Park article is in some ways better. There must be tons of academic reasearch on this after 13 years - only 1 guy quoted. It's not too far away from FA standard, but the nominator needs to realize it isn't there yet. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/South_Park_(season_1)/archive2&oldid=425869065"