Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cartman Gets an Anal Probe/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Karanacs 21:07, 27 September 2009 [1].

Cartman Gets an Anal Probe edit

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

And now for something completely new from me. :) I agreed to help out with the South Park featured topic drive, so here I am! I've heard tell of an article that discusses this episode in terms of Cartman's homophobia, but I haven't been able to get my hands on it or even get a solid reference for it. If anyone can get me this article, I would be most grateful. Otherwise, I think I have covered the sources and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Awadewit (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice little article (my comments are below).

The lead looks a little small. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you suggest some topics for addition? I thought it adequately summarized the article, but perhaps I was wrong. Awadewit (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the article for this FAC, it just jumps out at me as small compared to the size of the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, size isn't everything...:) Awadewit (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL.

"developed a concept based on the town of South Park and the four children." They are mentioned in the lead, but not in the body before this. Feels a little abrupt.

"Parker and Stone brought up the idea of a Mr. Hankey episode" it mentions talking poo soon after, but I don't think someone who doesn't know SP would understand.

"which Parker said was one of the main reasons he and Stone decided to sign on with the channel." ref?

I will say that I enjoy your prose. Usually at this point in a FAC, I'm commenting on words that should be changed, instead of ideas that should be explained. Nice work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"South Park was part of a reaction to the culture wars" - I don't understand this. Was it part of the wars, or did Trey and Stone decide to make it in response to the wars, or ???

  • It is part of a general reaction to the culture wars - "part of a reaction to the culture wars". I'm not sure I know how to make this clearer - could you make a suggestion? Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"when suddenly he is hit by a beam" - What kind of beam?

  • It is not entirely clear - it is alien tech, after all. Laser beam? I'm not sure. Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"an 80-foot satellite dish" - How do you the exact height?

  • This has been in the article since I started editing it. I don't remember whether it is in the episode or not. Do you want me to rewatch the episode? Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"wrote "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" themselves" - Is "themselves" needed?

There are two "originally"s and an "original" close together in the last paragraph of the "Production and release" section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"a phrase he learns from Chef." - Should it be "learned"?

"television to indulge in such humor with The Ren and Stimpy Show" - Should the "with" be an "in"?

The para that begins "The episode employs what literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin" uses the same ref four times. That might be too many.

Is the info mentioned on the File:CartmanAnalProbeSinga.ogg page in the article? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes - last paragraph of "Style and themes". Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have that ref? I love the video, and I'd like to see it supported by as much prose as possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend grabbing more info from that source, since we're kinda starting a precedent for non-free video. There may be more out there[2], and I'd like this articles use be ironclad because people will be looking to it as the only (or one of the few) FAs with NF video. With the current text, I'd have a hard time OKing the video's use, if I was doing the image check. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see any info that can be added. The only other source that mentions this connection doesn't say anything else than the article already has. Awadewit (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking to support Support

I've written a sentence by sentence critique of the lead in the subpage: Talk:Cartman_Gets_an_Anal_Probe/F&f's_rehash. Generally speaking, I'd say, you need more material about the episode itself in the lead, either of its background, or of its writing and reception. Reads well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adopted most of your suggestions. Could you let me know what details you think are missing from the lead? I'm worried about putting too much detail in the lead. Awadewit (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little strapped for time this morning, but I feel that the second paragraph of the lead could easily belong to a South Park (series) article. Lead content devoted more to the first episode would do a better job of drawing the reader in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a little. Awadewit (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I've now read the article. Very well written, especially the plot summary (which was funny). I've left two more comments (about the Background section) on the subpage. I thought the ending was slightly abrupt. Perhaps a sentence or two about Parker and Stone's response to the criticism might round it out. Changing to support. Congrats on a fine article! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've adopted your other suggestions. Parker and Stone haven't said much about the criticism. I tried to round out the article by having it end on an "up" note. Awadewit (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media review: No issues. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—

  • Consider basing the infobox on the recently promoted FA Starvin' Marvin (South Park)—i.e., remove that long list of episodes, and replace by just next and previous episodes. Also remove the citations from the infobox, as that stuff is cited elsewhere in the article.
  • The 'Jesus vs.' shorts should be in quotes rather than italics.
  • I think more context is needed for certain items in the article. For eg: I had to click on Murphy Brown to find out what that was, and you probably should mention that Tinky Winky relates to the children's show Teletubbies. In the lead sentence, it is a little confusing as to what exactly Comedy Central is (again, compare with "Starvin' Marvin", where it is more clear).
  • The source does not provide more context. If I added the context, it would be OR. I think it is clear what Comedy Central is. Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the background section even needed for this article? It doesn't directly relate to this episode, which is understandable as it is a "background" section, but most of the info is reproduced almost verbatim in the parent article, South Park (season 1).
  • Since this is the first episode, I think it is particularly important to put it in some cultural context. Also, in my opinion, articles should be able to stand on their own - readers should not have to read the "Season 1" article to get a summary of that crucial info. Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there scope for a "Legacy" section, ie a section where the episode is retrospectively analysed? We know that "CGAAP" was received poorly by contemporary reviewers, but how does it hold when you look back? Has anybody compared this episode's ctout animation with the CGI of subsequent episodes? And finally, what is the creators' opinions of it; I know that they are rather dismissive of the initial seasons, have they said anything the pilot in particular?
  • I haven't seen anything along this line except the commentary by the creators. They talk about the huge effort they put into it and the difference between it and "Weight Gain 4000" (comments which are in the article). Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Production and release" seems odd to me; how about shifting release info to the reception section and renaming it to "Release and reception"? Looking at other television articles I believe this would be standard format.
  • Considering the clip seems to only be used for discussing the song, I doubt the video is required. So to necessitate its keeping, how about also using it to discuss the animation?
  • Good idea! Added to the fair use rationale and the caption. Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, the word "Jew" "challeng[es] the boundaries of appropriate language"?! I know what you are trying to say here, but having the word "Jew" alongside "dildo" and "fat ass", you are leaving the sentence open to gross misinterpretation! :P
  • "'Jew' (used as an insult)" - How would you do this? It is all so awkward! Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

indopug (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional commentSupport: My issues were resolved at the GA review, but I've noticed almost everything in "style and themes" is about the series itself - pardon if I misinterpreted it, but are they all for South Park at the point of its pilot? If so, it would be better to not say "South Park" constantly throughout the section as it leads you off from the episode and onto the series itself in a hole. The Flash {talk} 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the reviews for the first episode actually reviewed the first five shows together, so the comments were about all five episodes - hence South Park. Awadewit (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm...thanks for clearing that up. The Flash {talk} 01:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source comments:
  • All links and sources are fine. Kudos on using good quality for a popcult article. No dab problems in main text. The only nitpick is The Gazette link in the reflist. Have you found the accurate source? It might be wise to search AP's archives to see if they've got it since they were the ones who published it. Or an alternative publication who also used the wire news. Preferably not a Gazzette this time. ;) RB88 (T) 01:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just dropped by and read the reception section. Nice work; a few comments though.

  • You jump from past to present tense in the part where the reviewer's comments are stated. The bit about the San Fransisco Chronicle, for instance, is in present tense, while the Houston Chronicle bit is in past tense. As most of the article is written in past tense, it would be better if you'd change it to that tense.
  • Quick comment; wouldn't it be better to use the background section as a sub section in the production section, because the layout you use is very strange compared to other television episode FAs.
  • The material isn't really suited to the production of this episode though - it makes much more sense as a general background section. Not all episode articles have to be exactly the same! :) Awadewit (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back later to review the rest of the article, in the meantime, please consider reviewing one of my FACs, "The Ex-Girlfriend" or "The Revenge". Thank you and good luck.--Music26/11 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'd just like to make the observation that the body text have dates formatted mmm dd yyyy, while the references are all dd mmm yyyy. I don't think it's a serious issue as it's WP:MOSNUM compliant in that formats within those two sections are consistent. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I enlarged one image and had a tinker at the top. Looks well-written. "80-foot" needs a metric conversion. I haven't looked properly at it. Tony (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the conversion template, but now the grammar is broken. Before it appropriately read "80-foot" and now it reads "80 feet". Any idea how to fix this? Awadewit (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I read the whole article and couldn't find any more flaws than what I found in the reception section. I still feel the background section would work better as a production sub section, but that's up to you. One more thing, ref 7 still has a dd mmm yyyy date format.--Music26/11 16:14, 25 September 2009 (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/Cartman_Gets_an_Anal_Probe/archive1&oldid=1138457115"