Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Park (season 1)/archive1

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:07, 8 August 2009 [1].

---

South Park (season 1)

Nominator(s): user:TheLeftorium, Nergaal (talk), user:Hunter Kahn 20:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/South Park (season 1)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/South Park (season 1)/archive2
• Featured article candidates/South Park (season 1)/archive3

I am nominating this for featured article because, well, Eric Cartman looked in his mom's closet and saw what he was getting for Christmas, an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000. Nergaal (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I really missed the pointless bureaucracy here at FAC. Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I initially thought the same, but you might have a different view if you were blind or partially sighted. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait I don't get the joke Nergaal posted above, it doesn't sound like a legitimate reason to nominate this for FAC. Also wasn't this article before nominated for FLC? —Terrence and Phillip 17:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

re: nominators put stuff at FAC if they think they are good for FA/fulfills the criteria => I write blurbs that might intrigue people enough to review the article + see the comments at FLC + I'll fix the alts also. Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding some alt text. However, it could use some improvement. In "A depiction of the four boys", the "A depiction of" is redundant and should be removed; and "the" suggests that the reader should know which boys these are, which a non-expert reader would not. Also, more detail is needed: saying just "four boys" doesn't describe Image:SouthPark season1.jpg well. The alt text "Two guys sitting in a chair during an interview" is a bit better, but "during an interview" is not immediately verifiable merely by looking at the image and should therefore be removed, and the remainder is both not-quite-right ("a" chair?) and not enough detail. Can you please give it another try? Please see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples for some ideas. Eubulides (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. I love FAC/FLC for all the reviewers typing ten times the text required to add to the article itself. Just a quick clarification: how would somebody "blind or partially sighted" be capable of reading the text but not comprehend an image?Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• As mentioned in WP:ALT, visually impaired readers often use assistive technology such as JAWS and Orca, which read a web page out loud to you. When these readers come to an image without alt text, they're stuck and often simply read out the file name of the image, which is not that helpful.
• Thanks for adding some more alt text, but I'm afraid it still needs some work. The phrase "possibly answering a question" is not right, since it's speculation. Alt text should be immediately verifiable only from the image, and shouldn't speculate like that. The other alt text "Kenny, Stan, Cartman, and Kyle waiving their hands" (1) contains proper names that cannot be verified by a non-expert, (2) has a misspelling, and (3) doesn't describe the gist of the image well: for example, it completely ignores the large lettering in that image. Please give it another try.
• You're correct that I could write the alt text for this article, but I don't have time to write alt text for all Wikipedia articles, and I try to help others to learn how to do it. It's not that hard a skill to pick up, typically; and the more people that know how to do it, the more-accessible Wikipedia will become to the visually impaired.

Eubulides (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this digression over now with the new entries? Nergaal (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• This thread is not a digression, as the article should conform to the WP:ALT guideline.
• Thanks for improving the alt text some more. However, the result still had a couple of the problems noted above: the first alt text contained the claim "main characters" that can't be verified by a non-expert reader only from the image, and the second alt text contained the misleading text "in his hands" (only one hand was used). Also, the alt text could have been a bit more descriptive.
• To try to help improve the article I changed:

• the alt text for Image:SouthPark season1.jpg as follows: 'A gray box depicting the four main characters handwaving, and with the title of the show, South Park, typed in large font contains four crudely drawn cartoon children waving their hands. They have big round heads and wear colorful winter clothes. Behind them is "SOUTH PARK" in big letters, and below them is "THE COMPLETE FIRST SEASON".'; and
• the alt text for Image:Trey Parker Matt Stone 2007.jpg as follows "Two guys sitting down, one of them holding seated men. One holds a microphone in his hands one hand and gestures with the other.".

Eubulides (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Needs a thorough, independent copy-edit throughout. Here are random things I picked up as examples.

• "region 2 and 4" ... "Regions 2 and 4"?
  • fixed. n
• "The first season was a ratings success for Comedy Central, receiving a Nielsen Rating rating of 1.3 for the first episode, to 6.4 by the tenth episode."—"rising to"?
  • fixed. n
• Direct quotes in the lead need citations. Either move the direct quotes to below and express generically, or provide refs.
  • wasn't aware of this requirement; fixed. Nergaal (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Opening para in "Development" is VERY long. A turn-off. Can you audit paragraph lengths throughout?
  • almost doubled the # of para. n
• "Cartman tells his friends about the odd dream he had of aliens abducting him and inserting things into his anus." Noun + -ing is usually inelegant. "that aliens ab....". "Odd" is ambiguous. See User:Tony1/Advanced_editing_exercises#A_common_problem.E2.80.94noun_plus_-ing Tony (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • • wouldn't switching the -ing change the meaning? Nergaal (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I tried a new wording. Could you guys let me know if that's sufficient? Also, Tony, do you still feel a copy edit is necessary, or do you think it's minor enough of a problem that we can work it out here at the FAC? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://animatedtv.about.com/cs/news/a/awards_2.htm a reliable source?
  • • that was a weird slip. fixed. Nergaal (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Is it normal to have nothing about the VHS releases, I realise it's pretty much a dead technology now but if the article's going to be truly comprehensive wouldn't it be worth including? Guest9999 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I added a bit about the VHS releases. Do you think this is sufficient? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems like a good addition to me. Guest9999 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I see minor MOS fixes need throughout—the episodes in the plot synopsis bit need to be in quotes. Jesus vs. Frosty/Santa should also be in quotes as they are shorts. Also, since both shorts link to the same article, I don't think there is a need to link both.
• Infobox—Are all those DVD release dates necessary? I actually don't see how any are required for the infobox, but even so, only the original one seems necessary. The rest is mentioned in the table below anyway. Also, I suggest removing those citations as they cramp the infobox (it's all cited elsewhere anyway) indopug (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the quotes for the episodes and shorts; the shorts link to different places in the article so I left the links; I cleaned up the DVD release in the infobox. Any other issues? Nergaal (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, despite the minor prose issues I think this article would qualify as a FA. There seems to be no serious breaching of the FA criteria. —Terrence and Phillip 18:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.