Talk:South Park/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will begin to review this article shortly. See Talk:Abismo Negro/GA1 To find out what type of a review I will give. I hope the editor(s) that will hopefully resolve my concerns that I intend to post later on is an experienced one at that. Seeing as I am a fan of the show this should be interesting, but I am not involved in any project affiliated with it, so I have no idea which references are reliable, questionable, etc. So be prepared for questions regarding material of that nature.--WillC 08:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Seems stable enough to pass this section of the criteria.--WillC 08:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:SP-s10e04-censor.jpg needs a fair-use rational. Per the wikipedia MoS, images should not be placed on the left directly below level three headers. The image under the "Characters and setting" section and the image in the "Music" section both violate this. Add a caption for the infobox image. Change the second image's caption from "The boys (in order from left to right): Eric Cartman, Kyle Broflovski, Stan Marsh, and Kenny McCormick." to "The main characters (in order from left to right): Eric Cartman, Kyle Broflovski, Stan Marsh, and Kenny McCormick" In the music image, remove "the late" from "Chef would often sing in a style reminiscent of that of his voice actor, the late Isaac Hayes." It is not important that he is dead, just that the character sung like his voice actor. Change "A censorship card from the second Cartoon Wars episode, amidst Controversy." to "A censorship card from the second Cartoon Wars episode was surrounded in controversy." Complete sentences need periods, but if the captions are referring to the image directly, they do not end with periods. That is apart of the MoS, I believe. I forget the link, it was something I learned a long time ago.--WillC 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

   Add alternative text as well.--WillC 04:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

   If a caption for the infobox identifies the main characters (gathered around the town sign) by name, then would the image under "Characters and settings" be redundant per WP:NFCC? Or should the infobox caption be along the lines of "Season 13 title card"? Also, is the image of the "censorship card" really needed? A screenshot of white words on a black screen...the text in the section seems to sufficiently describe it to the reader, no? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

   Remove the censorship screenshot if you wish. The less fair-use images the better. The caption for the main image I feel should be "A screenshot from the opening title sequence featuring all of the South Park characters as of ____." I don't feel it would be redundant.--WillC 02:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   Done. Though someone may want to tweak the caption I added; I've been told I can be "too wordy". - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Entire review

Lead Info box Add a caption for the infobox image.--WillC 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Even though the lead and any infoboxes are just the opening to the article and the information featured there will be or should be mentioned later on where each statement will be sourced, I feel that the information featured in the infobox right now should all have citations. So please add a ref to each section.--WillC 02:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Done. But for the life of me, I could not find a decent source (anything other than a tech forum) to support the bit about the show running in 480i for its first 12 seasons. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Then remove it.--WillC 00:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Oh...already had. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Text "South Park is an American animated sitcom, created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone for the cable channel Comedy Central." Link American, even though this is the English wikipedia we aren't the US pedia, there are other English speaking countries. Also remove the comma and change the last part of the sentence to "for the Comedy Central television network." Channel seems so unprofessional/out of place. Just to be blunt it reads badly. Hard to explain my feelings about it further. "which led to the greenlighting of the series by Comedy Central." Greenlighting is jargon, so be sure to explain it per WP:Jargon for non-fans or ones not familiar with the on-goings in TV like myself. The rest of the lead is fine.--WillC 06:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Characters and setting "The show mostly follows a group of four boys" Remove "mostly", it is unneeded. Around 90% of the time it follows at least one of the boys.--WillC 01:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC) All righty. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Themes "South Park was the first weekly program to be assigned the TV-MA rating, and is generally intended for adult audiences." The second part of the sentence has me wondering. Should it instead be "South Park was the first weekly program to be assigned the TV-MA rating, which is generally intended for adult audiences." or am I just breathing too much into it and I should take it just as it reads? I'm not sure I quite follow. Do you mean maybe it should read "...which is generally assigned to a show that is intended for mature audiences" to reflect what the MA rating means? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Nevermind it. I'm thinking too much.--WillC 17:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "During earlier seasons, this speech would commonly beginning with a variation of the phrase "You know what? I've learned something today..."." → "During earlier seasons, this speech would commonly begin with a variation of the phrase "You know what? I've learned something today...".[" Already fixed this one. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) After reading this section, I now see that the name of the section is incorrect. When I first saw it I thought music, maybe you should rename it too "Running gags" or something more appropriate. The name at the moment does work but I feel it can be renamed to be more straight forward.--WillC 05:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Hmm. What else could you call it? A running gag is such a minor device in fiction (in the grand scheme of things), and doesn't adequately encompass everything described in this section. A "theme" in fiction is a much more broad component. How about renaming it "themes and style"? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) That will do.--WillC 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Origins "Friend and Brian Graden commissioned Parker and Stone to create a second short film as a video Christmas card." → "Brian Graden, Fox network executive and a mutual friend, commissioned Parker and Stone to create a second short film as a video Christmas card." When I first read it I thought you were referring to a network called "Friend", until I finally figured out what was meant. This way it can be avoided for future reference. Agreed! Fixed - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) "The two then entered talks with both MTV and Comedy Central.", "enetered talks" if the main problem here. Change it to "The two then entered negotiations with both MTV and Comedy Central." Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Maybe renamed the section to "Creation" to be more direct. Well, most of this section deals with events leading up to its actual creation. Re-name it "Origins and creation"? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) That will do.--WillC 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC) In the image description show which is Stone and which is Parker.--WillC 06:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Makes sense. Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Production Fine.--WillC 17:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Animation "which are now created using Motion" Gives a small explanation as to what Motion is to keep consistency since the other software has been explained.--WillC 18:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "while others will incorporate other styles of animation." → "while others has incorporated other styles of animation."--WillC 18:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Voice cast "Mary Kay Bergman voiced the majority of the female characters until her suicide near the end of the third season (1999)." → "Mary Kay Bergman voiced the majority of the female characters until her suicide on November 11, 1999." This way it doesn't seem like she died in the show, which is what first popped in my mind when I read it and I'm a fan of the show. "performance pseudonym Blue Girl." Link "pseudonym".--WillC 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Guest stars Fine, I think.--WillC 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Music Fine as well, possibly.--WillC 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Title sequence Fine, (once again I'm bored so I will leave a uncertin statement to screw with readers) interesting, but possible. Distribution "Canada on Comedy Network" → "Canada on The Comedy Network"--WillC 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "have been released by Rhino and Comedy Central," Link Rhino.--WillC 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "available for streaming from The Comedy Network's website" Delink The Comedy Network, overlinking from above.--WillC 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Ratings "1.3 (980,000 viewers)" Damn that seems wrong. As you can see by my name I'm a wrestling fan, and I've dealt with a few ratings. Programs with get a 1.3 usually end up getting near double that viewership. Something must be wrong here. TNA Impact! usually gets a 1.3 and has around 1.8 million viewers normally. The same concern for "8.2 rating (6.2 million viewers)".--WillC 19:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC) A rating represents what percentage of households with televisions were watching a program. A 1.3 roughly means that 1.3% of homes (with TVs) watched that particular episode (viewership is estimated based on that). This was over ten years ago, and the number of households with TVs has increased since then, thus today there is a higher comparative number of viewers per ratings point. This site explains it better than I do. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Recognitions and awards "The same year, Rolling Stone declared it has having been the funniest show on television since its debut 10 years prior." → "The same year, Rolling Stone declared it to be the funniest show on television since its debut 10 years prior." Shorter and makes more sense. I put a WTF face on when I read it.--WillC 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) "South Park won the CableACE Award award for" Ding ding Johnny, you are correct the answer is redundancy. It sounds better just as "South Park won the CableACE Award for"--WillC 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC) It needs to be changed into what again? (this says to change it into exactly what it already reads...I think) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC) There is a double "award".--WillC 05:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Oh. Duh. Don't know how I didn't catch that even after reading it 12 times. Anyway...fixed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Criticism and controversy This section would be better as a level three under Reception.--WillC 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "latter claiming it as "dangerous to the democracy"." → "latter claiming it is "dangerous to the democracy"." "Parker and Stone were angered by a cartoon Michael Moore included in his 2002 documentary film Bowling for Columbine. The two claim both the cartoon's resemblance to the animation style of South Park and its placement immediately following Stone's interview in the film are intended to mislead viewers into thinking the two had produced the cartoon themselves. Parker and Stone accused Moore of using similar forms of manipulation and deception in his films, and responded by spoofing him in their 2004 film Team America: World Police." What does this have to do with South Park? This would be better in Bowling for Columbine, which I must say is very interesting, or in Stone and Parker's articles.--WillC 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Yeah, upon reading it some more, I agree with the Michael Moore thing. I just went ahead and removed it. Fixed the other stuff as well. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Cultural impact After reading the first two paragraphs I've begun to consider it should be renamed to "Political impact" instead. Section seems fine, but take this in mind, move the political information to the end and place it under a level three header with the name I gave above.--WillC 20:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Film ""Best Music, Original Song"." Link this.--WillC 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Media and merchandise Fine, I think, this one I'm unsure of.--WillC 20:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC) References What makes the following reliable (remember not involved in this area, so some could just be dumb questions): My comments regarding the reliability of each source will follow the web addresses already typed below. Any of the edits I mention below are found here and here.- SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC) allmovie.com - Used to source the genre of the show (animated sitcom) and the date it debuted (August 13, 1997). The site specializes in providing stats such as this on movies and television shows, and unlike imdb, its staff handles this aspect, while requiring sources if users wish to correct such information. Macleans.ca. - The articles from this site are mostly used to source sentences that are also supported by other sources. When it sources a sentence by itself, it draws upon information found from interviews from the creators of the show. reason.com. - This source is an article that could be considered an opinion piece. But the only portions used in this article do not refer to any opinions of the author, but to facts about the movement that opposes the show due to its content. The sentences that it references are also further confirmed by other sources. Reason has been endorsed and praised by The Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Washington Post, among others, and had its articles re-printed in several other high profile publications. [1] collegian.psu.edu - "South Park was the first weekly program to be assigned the TV-MA rating,[20]"; The source got its information from a Comedy Central press release, and from an interview with a spokesperson for the channel. independent.co.uk - This is the website for one of the more prominent newspapers in the UK (The Independent). Four separate articles from the site are used as sources; one (written by a television and arts writer) sources info regarding the style of the show, another sources facts about the history of the show (while further verifying info with multiple refs), the third is an interview with a guest voice of the show which refs his appearance in an episode, and the last refs the Seinfeld/Turkey bit, on which the info on such was received through an interview with the creators. browardpalmbeach.com. - This source contains information from interviews with the creators and uses info published by the Nielsen Ratings. It was written by Robert Wilonsky, who is the current pop culture editor for The Dallas Observer, while having his columns published in numerous other publications, as well as filling in for Roger Ebert on his movie review show. spscriptorium.com. - This one is indeed unreliable. It's a fansite. While it sourced info that isn't all that disputable (that two "precursor" shorts were created in 1992 and 1995) I went ahead and replaced it with better source anyway (CNN/Fortune magazine article). deadlinehollywooddaily.com - This one was used to ref Debbie Liebling's role in the show. The site does seem kind of blig-ish, so I replaced it with another article from variety.com (see below) variety.com. - This is the web version for Variety, which is one of the two most widely-circulated entertainment insider publications, specializing in entertainment news and intended for people in the entertainment business. Digizine - Reliable within context: it's used to source the sound engineering . The site specializes in articles intending to be of interest to people who work with digital technology, and the source article gets its info from interviews with the show's own sound engineers. doghouseboxing.com - It's a site dedicated to boxing and sources the bit about ring announcer Michael Buffer being a guest voice for an episode. I'll add another source (from the New York Daily News) for further verification. marinij.com. - It sources Brent Musburger's guest appearance for an episode. Other sources to verify this are hard to find, since running a news search on Musburger and South Park returns a slew of articles on celebrity birthdays (he and Matt Stone share the same birthday). On a little side note, Musburger's name does appear in the episode's closing credits. This is the online version of The Marin Independent Journal, which is the official newspaper of Marin County, just north of San Francisco. Whether or not it is reliable, I will leave to you. Here is their website. If its reliability is questionable, I would say it's best to remove the Musburger info until a better source can be found. telegraph.co.uk - Online version of a fairly prominent newspaper in the UK. Its own article on Wikipedia contains a source where it is declared the country's "other paper of record".[1] (here is that very source) animationmagazine.net - Sources Henry Winkler's guest appearance, and gets its info from an interview with Winkler himself. soundtrack.net - Sources the techniques used by former show composer Adam Berry, and gets its info from an interview with Berry himself. indianexpress.com - If you look at the site, it seems to consist of subjective coverage of news, weather, etc. It sources South Park's airing in India. Here's another article that contains interviews with Indian citizens who talk about watching the show there. I'm fairly certain this site is reliable enough to not incorrectly report that the show airs in India, so I would refer to the "common sense" defense per the overview on WP:RS here. perthsites.com - This was meant to support that the show was the most successful on Australia's SBS. Problem is, the source isn't dated, and it also doesn't really imply what it means by "successful", and who knows what other show may have surpassed it? I just removed that tidbit from the article and will leave it as sourcing the info about SP airing on SBS (for the same reason as above) tv6.ee - Well, the link in this source used to go directly to the South Park page on this station's official website. But now, it doesn't. I'll just remove the info about the show airing in Estonia until I can find another source. archives.tcm.ie - Again, I'd have to refer to the reasons I stated above. Within the context in which it is used, I would say the Irish newspaper The Sunday Business Post is reliable enough to not incorrectly report that the show airs in their country. sicradical.chilltime.com. - Sources that SP airs in Portugal on SIC. The link goes to the SP page on SIC's official website. c21media.net - This one, I'm not so sure. They claim to be "The world's leading programming newsfeed". A news search seems to indicate that The New York Post and CBS uses C21 posts in their reports. I went to the English-language version of B92's official website and couldn't figure out how to navigate my way to anything within the site that would indicate that SP airs on their channel, so again, I'll leave this up to your judgment and will remove the bit about SP airing on this channel in Serbia until (if) I can find a more suitable source. snta.com - This one is definitely reliable, as it is the official site of a conglomerate of six of the country's largest television syndicators used to provide information to advertisers. Here is their "about us" page. thedigitalbits.com - Yeah, this one is iffy at best. I replaced with a better source (The Seattle Times) wired.com - This is the online site for Wired. The source uses info from the Nielsen Ratings in its own article, and is used as a source about SP's ratings in this article. Internet Movie Database - Bad source. Already replaced (see below) WorldNetDaily.com - Removed this one, too. Consensus on noticeboard deemed this site unreliable. capalert.com - Reliable within the context: "Several other activist groups have protested the show's parodies of Christianity and portrayal of Jesus Christ.[18][145][146]" This source is the very site of one of those activist groups. miamipoetryreview.com - This one is probably not the best one to use for what it sources (an opinion piece from a poetry review site used to source info on South Park). I removed it from one sentence which has multiple sources, and replaced it with a better source (reason.com, see above, plus this reason article gets its info from an interview with the show's creators) at the end of the one sentence it sourced by itself. IslamOnline.net - Removed this one already. It is blog-ish, and sentence had multiple other sources anyway. independent.ie - This is the online site for the Irish version of The Independent (see above) TeenHollywood.com - Removed this one already (see below) theadvocates.org - This source got its information from an interview with show co-creator Trey Parker. Buzzle.com - Already removed (see below) BuddyTV - After reading this site's "about us" page, I wouldn't consider them all too reliable. I went ahead and removed this one, as it was part of a multiple reference. boxofficemojo.com - Very reliable. It's used on the majority of film articles for sourcing box office figures (which it is being used to source in this article) and is endorsed by the Films Wikiproject. ew.com - Online version of Entertainment Weekly, one of the more prominent magazines that covers arts and entertainment. Definitely reliable if they're reporting on an issue of the Guinness Book of World Records. iol.co.za - Replaced this one with an article from salon.com, an online magazine which is certainly reliable enough considering the context under which it's used as a source (stating that an animated short appears in the Monty Python anniversary special) discogs.com - Yikes. I just realized that this one shares imdb's main flaw (any schmo can submit info without the site's staff verifying it thoroughly). I replaced it with info from the online site of The San Francisco Chronicle. actionfigureinsider.com? - Removed this one. Was part of a multiple reference. Based on reviews for articles about the characters on this show, I removed/replaced a handful of these from those articles, and meant to do the same here (which I just did...IslamOnline, Buzzle and WorldNetDaily). These just had to be removed because there are already other sources in place for the info they referenced. I replaced the spscriptorium refs (spscriptorium is a fan page) and I went ahead and removed the imdb ref (I'll be the first to admit that imdb can be an awful source). I couldn't find any other source to back up Isaac Hayes's 1999 Image Award nomination, so in the meantime I just removed it entirely. As for the rest, I would consider fairly reliable, since they are not used out of context, and are used to ref mostly uncontroversial material. allmovie, boxofficemojo, and discogs are considered reliable for statistics (they are not user-edited). Macleans reliability was brought into question once, but the article used from that site is an interview with the creators of the show (same with TeenHollywood, which was removed along with the Michael Moore material anyway). Whether or not some of these reference disputable material and are not considered reliable, I will leave to your judgment, and will find suitable replacements. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I must be honest, one big paragraph on why they are reliable has only left me confused. Could you instead just write the reason why under each of them, so this could be a bit more simple.--WillC 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Sure thing. I'll get to the specifics within two days or so. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Well if you can get to it now, this is the only thing holding me from passing the article.--WillC 05:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC) After reading the explanations for reliability of each, I've determined that I will take the rest in good faith, considering you seem like a person who knows enough on reliability of sites. Usually I re-read an article before I pass or fail it, but since this one didn't have many problems, I'm just going to go ahead and pass it.--WillC 18:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Ref 48 has no publisher. Ref 88 has coding problem(s). jam.canoe.ca. should be Canadian Online Explorer as the publisher and "jam! Showbiz: Music" as the work.--WillC 20:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC) All fixed, and I just removed the #88 ref, as other refs support the same statement it did. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Further reading Fine.--WillC 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) External links Fine.--WillC 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)