As part of the ongoing drive to reevaluate old FAs according to modern norms, I took at look at this article, and have some comments on issues I think stand in the way of it being a featured-quality article:
- The article seems very unbalanced in terms of what it covers. I get that the controversy around scientology was a big part of the discussion around the episode, but the "controversy" section both seems like a bad place to cover a lot of it (it's weird Hayes' departure gets mentioned after the discussion in production about why they chose to do the episode and its direct relevance) and also feels like it really could use a pass for summary style (some of the information is plain trivia, like "hey they referenced this in a cover illustration years after the fact" at the end. Why does a joke at Tom Cruise's sexuality merit a four-sentence quote from Entertainment Weekly with no followup? etc.) From an organization perspective, a lot of the stuff is better put in development, release, etc, instead of a "controversy" section.
- The reception section seems pretty spare. There's very little actual critical reception from publications at the time, the analysis section doesn't actually say much at present, and the legacy section is mostly just a rebranded "in popular culture" trivia section. From a quick search of academic databases and Google Books, there's newer scholarship that should be reflected in the article (e.g., ; the article at present basically doesn't cover anything in the last decade-plus.
- File:South Park Xenu.jpg needs a better fair use rationale, and I don't think there's much justification for File:Cmonjews.jpg and especially File:South Park Scientology grafitti.jpg; they're not the subject of critical commentary and they're mostly illustrative.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @David Fuchs: I see that the article has not had significant edits since you posted this review above. Do you still agree with the assessment above, and if so would you be willing to nominate this to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah, I'll probably get to it early next year. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
