Talk:Cartman Gets an Anal Probe/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello. I'll be starting this review. First off the bat, after this I think a second opinion is needed, so I'll be needing one.

Alright, the article overhaul looks pretty good from a skim. I'll have to look further to check for grammar and spelling after a few issues are taken care of:

1. The structural order of things throws me a bit. My suggestion would be to move "Historical background" as a subheading for production and the "release" bit of that section as one as well. The current way everything is seems a bit out of focus.
2. A reference in the Stone and Parker image under "Production" should be added.
3. The article appears to be lacking a "Pop-cultural references" section. As I'm not familiar with South Park very well, I'm not sure if there really are any, but if there are, it should be added. References of course should be added with it, unless there aren't any, in which the section should be abolished.

All in all, generally in good shape, just needs some additions and cleanup. The Flash ^{talk} 01:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate to move the historical background to the production section. The historical material is much broader than the material in "production". I'm not sure what seems out of focus - could you explain a bit more and perhaps I could tweak the article? Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the image. Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read all of the sources I can find on this episode and I didn't see any relevant information on popular culture references. Generally, we are not supposed to list these things just for the sake of it, as that is WP:TRIVIA. Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that's why I said to only add it if there's a source. Anyways, after reading the background section again, it looks like it works well into Style and themes, but not really the issue. I was just thrown off a bit by "Plot" not being the first section. Still, nothing really "out of focus," I just think that some smaller things might fit better into bigger things. I suppose the Background section is fine on it's own, but I think a second opinion should be given before this is gratified. The Flash ^{talk} 14:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

I never thought i would be involved in reviewing an article on a TV episode, but...

• This article is excellent, and more sophisticated than most of the material on TV episodes and series etc. However, like The Flash, I think the Background section doesn't quite work. The section begins: ""Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" first aired in August 1997." Although this seems like a logical starting point, ths sentences that immediately follow, which are the true "background" I think, refer to a broad milieu within which the idea for South Park was conceived and then realised. The culture wars thus precede the episode, and should probably precede information in the opening para about the episode's airing. (It might even be preferable for the airing info to be in a later section)

• I have changed the sentence to "South Park was part of a reaction to the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s in the United States..." Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• "It was part of a reaction..." Read literally, the "It" here means this one episode of South Park, whereas i think the whole idea of South park is the thing that is "part of the reaction".

• This has been fixed with the above change. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Murphy Brown's motherhood, Tinky Winky's sexuality,..." I'm probably supposed to understand this, but I have no idea to what these remarks refer, and as a result I can't follow the nature of the argument.

• Unfortunately, these are the examples used by the source. I could explain, but I think that adding more would be OR. I was hoping the links would provide any context readers didn't have. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think "The culture wars, and political correctness in particular, were driven by the belief that relativism was becoming more relevant to daily life" is a very big call, and needs both specific citations and a bit more explanation.

• The entire paragraph is cited to the same source. Could you explain which part is unclear, so that I can work on my paraphrase? Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• The two sentences: "The culture wars, and political correctness in particular, were driven by the belief that relativism was becoming more relevant to daily life. South Park, one scholar explains, "made a name for itself as rude, crude, vulgar, offensive, and potentially dangerous"." seem like a non sequitur. How is something being rude and crude in any way related to the increasing importance of relativism in daily life? If they are related, the nature of that relationship will need to be explained to a lay reader.

• I've tried to clarify. Here is the original source. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the sentence: "Its critics argued that the Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny were poor role models for children while its supporters celebrated the show's defense of free speech.[3]" belongs in the background at all, but in the Reception section near the end. It seems odd to talk about critics views of characters in a section that is providing the background to the creation of the very first episode.

• Considering the source (linked above), I think this does fit. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would try and reshape this section along the lines of: "During the 1980s and 1990s, strong divisions in political and social life were characterised as a culture war, in which (explain role of entertainment and values here). Some analysts (who?) argued that political correctness was an (?undesirable?) effect of these divisions, as (who?) sought to blah blah. Debate surrounded the portrayal of X values. Examples included (Murphy Brown or whatever, but it will need explaining). South Park was conceived as a reaction to political correctness (reference needed - assuming I'm understanding this correctly). It "made a name for itself etc" (source). Sorry this is such a crap effort at setting out a framework.

• The source does not quite contain the history of the culture wars you are looking for. I'm trying to use sources that mention South Park - these are not always satisfactory. After reading the source, do you have any suggestions for improvement? If this source is not adequate, do you think I should use a source on the history of the culture wars that does not mention South Park? Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have no issues with the rest of the article, which is excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy

• Just a further response to say that, while I would want to revisit the "Background" section at FA level, I am happy with it for GA, with the tweaks that have been undertaken. I will also leave a message at The Flash's talk page, saying I believe it's OK for GA, and that the ball is back in their court. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• After checking over the sections and generally structural system of the article, as well as sources, I've got to say I agree with Hamiltonstone. Article checks out all together in my opinion. Y Good job. The Flash ^{talk} 00:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)