Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trapped in the Closet (South Park)

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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Trapped in the Closet (South Park) edit

Nominating for Featured Article status. This article has been relatively stable with only minor edits for a few months now. All images have a detailed fair use rationale explaining why they are appropriate in the article. The article itself has citations to (60) different sources. The article has had a peer review, was then listed as a Good Article, and then had a second peer review, and it looks like the prior editors had worked on implementing those older suggestions from the article history processes. It is my belief that Trapped in the Closet (South Park) meets the featured article criteria. Cirt 02:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Support - as nominator. Cirt 02:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose It is a good article under Wikipedia standards but I would not like to see such a religious/political that is in very high tensions at this point in time as a featured article. Some may disagree with me here but I think that we should wait until this topic cools on the window even considering to put this into featured article category. Aflumpire 09:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid reason to oppose. Find something wrong with the article, not the subject. —Verrai 13:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I second that. FA status has nothing to do with topic of the article, but how well it is written. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is neutral. Featured article criteria is here. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 05:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article is well-written, solid prose, NPOV, well-researched and really does a good job at exploring the depth of the topic and the impact of the episode on popular culture. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is fully compliant with Wikipedia policy and has high relevancy in popular culture.--Fahrenheit451 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meets the criteria. Creating "high tensions" is not an argument against promoting to FA. -- Wikipedical 01:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Weak oppose - Does the plot need to be that detailed? I mean, it's longer than most film article plots. Transformers is a 2 and half hour movie, and it's shorter. Other than that, I brief glance of the rest of the article looks good. I think the lead is a little too details for a 34 kb (not counting as readable prose, just general size with codes) size article. I'd say 3 paragraphs would be plenty. I think the quote from Stone and Parker can go, save that for the article body. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The plot summary is four times as long as is recommended. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 05:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Transformers has no plot at all. Big robots fight, and that's it. --SidiLemine 13:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fulfils criteria. A couple of one sentence paras could be combined onto following paras but this is not a deal-breaker. cheers, Casliber (talk • contribs) 03:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Its a good article but I have some issues:

The plot summary is overlong as discussed above and should be reduced in length accordingly.
The information on the production of the episode is limited to the short inspiration section - could this be expanded further?
The use of episode numbering in the lead may be confusing to the casual reader. Perhaps naming the episode as being the twelfth in the ninth season would be more appropriate.
Perhaps the {{cite episode}} template could be employed here as the primary source for much of the content of the article is the episode itself particularly for the plot summary.
The to do list for the article lists a number of tasks - I can see that the article is described as stable by the nominator but is there extensive work planned?

--Opark 77 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support with my issues addressed I am happy to change my vote to support.--Opark 77 22:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing some points from above

Done -- Shortened plot summary -- Myself and User:Scorpion0422 have made some recent edits to shorten the plot summary. As suggested by User:Opark 77.
Done -- Shortened the lead -- Again, same two users have shortened the lead, and cut it down to three paragraphs, as suggested by User:Bignole.
Done -- One sentence paragraphs -- I combined a couple of one sentence paragraphs into other more comprehensive paragraphs. Suggestion from User:Casliber.
Done -- Production of the episode -- Reading through the discussion pages, it looks like Michaelas10 (talk · contribs) (since left Wikipedia) had tried to find more sources on the production of this particular episode itself, and had worked hard to come up with what is there already. Comment from User:Opark 77, above.
Done -- To do list on the talk page -- I took the liberty of crossing out some of the recently completed objectives on the to do list. The only ones that remain are relatively minor, and will not materially change the article, so to answer your question, yes, I would imagine that save edits to improve the article coming right now from out of this Featured Article discussion, the article will continue to remain pretty stable. As per the above comment on this by User:Opark 77.
Done -- Numbering of episode in lead -- Changed this to "twelfth episode of the ninth season" -- Direct suggestion, above, of User:Opark 77 (Thanks, this sounds better.)

I hope that this addresses some of the points suggested from above. Thank you all for your helpful suggestions. Hopefully after these edits we can continue to move the article along to WP:FA status soon. Cirt 22:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- Comment - A third party copy editor needs to be found for the article. I was scanning over structure and I noticed lots of misused commas with quotation marks. See Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE. Basically, if it is a sentence fragment you are quoting, then the punctuation is on the outside. If it is a complete sentence, then it is on the inside. Also, if you say something like: John stated "blah blah balh"-- then you need a comma after "stated". This: "In a different review of the DVD" is not necessary. If you had two different IGN reviews, then it would be appropriate, but it is an IGN review followed by The Denver Post, so it's obviouse that it is different. These are just things that caught my eye. There is probably more, so I'd suggest a third-party copyeditor. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. -- Thanks for this suggestion. I have left a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading, DIFF, hopefully this will yield some help towards the article's progress to Featured Article status. Cirt 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Done -- Copyedits as related to quotes and commas -- In ten individual edits, I have gone through the paragraphs of the article to the best of my ability and edited those sections as per the suggestions from User:Bignole, above. These edits should be fairly easy to spot from my edit history comments, referring to this FAC. Hope that helps a bit towards the process of moving the article along towards FA status. Cirt 04:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral - I tried to clean up the article some myself, but I'm not perfect so I'm sure I didn't get everthing. Question, I found this--""Trapped in the Closet" was nominated for an Emmy in July. The network showed its appreciation by running a full-page ad in Variety with the "South Park" boys saying, "C'mon, Jews! Show them who really runs Hollywood." The episode has been rerun many times since.</ref>"--in the article. It seems like it is meant to be seen by the reader, but in fact it's part of a footnote. Was that the intention, or did someone mess up the coding by accident? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that is correct as it is - it looks like it is supposed to be part of the citation, quoting from the cited article for those who would be interested to check. But if it is confusing we can just remove it from the citation, and just leave the citation itself. Cirt 05:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- If it's part of the citation, that's fine. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as per nom--Swellman 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.