Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Volcano (South Park)/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 00:39, 5 August 2009 [1].

Volcano (South Park) edit

Nominator(s): Music26/11 and Hunter Kahn (contribs)
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets all of the criteria. Hunter Kahn and I have been working on this article the past few weeks/months, and now feel that it is ready for FAC.--Music26/11 12:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Music26/11 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images both need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did this but please check it; I don't normally do alt texts so I want to make sure I did it right. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for looking into it. The alt text still needs work, I'm afraid, as it is mostly not about appearance. It needs to be reworded to talk only about appearance and to discuss only material that can easily be verified by someone who can see the image but does not know the area. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples (particularly the 3rd and 4th examples). Eubulides (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the alt-text, please check if it's ok now. Orichalcon (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but it still needs work. The alt text makes claims about the visual appearance that a non-expert cannot immediately verify by simply looking at the image. For example, a non-expert won't know the names of the characters, or of the co-creators. Alt text should just describe the visual appearance; it shouldn't explain the image. Here's another way to think about it: if there's any repetition between the alt text and the caption, then something is amiss, as the alt text should talk only about visual appearance, and the caption should assume that you can see the image and shouldn't waste its time on visual appearance. Again, please see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Eubulides (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite funny actually, anyone who passes by takes a stab at trying to improve the alt text. What do you think about the changes I've made.--Music26/11 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better. I tweaked it a bit more to follow the guideline more closely. Eubulides (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just a few quick ref and format fixes before I can support this. Amazing work, but:
  1. The profile caption should be sourced.
  2. As I understand this is common knowledge to any South Park episode, but could you find a source for the TV-M rating?
    • Done, added to Reception section. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First paragraph in production seems clumped.

Other than those, fantastic work! I can tell you're attempting to get Season 1 all Featured, likely to make a Featured topic, so good luck with it. The Flash {talk} 03:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything checks out, nice work. Support. The Flash {talk} 04:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The infobox is very very long. I suggest making the episode chronology like [Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo]] and cutting down the size of the caption. The plot summary section is also a little long in my opinion; can it be cut down to three tight paragraphs by removing details like "Unlike Stan, Kenny is able to shoot animals, and this impresses Jimbo" or the bit about the education film? (not seen the episode yet, but stuff like this doesn't seem particularly important to me to the overall plot) indopug (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the infobox concern, I think. The stuff about the Duck and Cover film could be removed from the plot section, but the reason it is mentioned in the section is because the film is discussed in the cultural references section.--Music26/11 12:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One possible option would be to either shorten the "Duck and Cover" mention down to a very brief mention, or just remove it altogether, but then go into more detail about it and how it is used in the episode under Cultural References. What do you think, Music? — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Hunter says looks good to me. I suggest this because I feel the plot is tighter and better handled in other Season 1 FAs such as "Damien". indopug (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Parker and Stone felt the early animation of the series had strongly improved with the "Volcano" episode" seems a little awkward, especially since "Parker and Stone strongly disliked." is just before it. Not sure how to fix it.

  • I tried a change. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

""Volcano" and the episodes "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" and "Weight Gain 4000" received an average 1.4 Nielsen Rating, which translates to slightly more than 1 million viewers." Seems kinda random to mention those other two episodes. Why those two, and not other ones? Why mention any others? Probably based on the source, which I can't read.

  • The reason for this is there was no source that I could find for the ratings of this individual episode, but I did find one saying these three episodes averaged a 1.4 rating. I see what you mean, though, so to avoid confusion I just dropped the 1.4 rating and the referenencs to the other episodes, and said it was seen by approximately 1 million people. Better? — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest mixing up "Volcano" and "the episode" a bit more with "its" in the lead. Maybe further down too, but I haven't read that far yet.

  • I tried to switch it up a bit. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"nuclear weapon attack." might be better as "nuclear attack." Not sure.

I think it would be good to start the Plot section with "At the start of the episode, Stan's Uncle Jimbo..."

  • I don't really feel strongly one way or the other, so I added it in. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Jimbo explains to the boys how they should hunt." Maybe "Jimbo explains to the boys how to hunt."

"When they see a creature" Do they do this repeatedly with different animals, or can you say "they see a rabbit" or whatever?

  • It is multiple creatures. I tried rewording it to make that more clear. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Stan proves not to have the proper temperament to enjoy hunting" Mabye "Stan doesn't have the proper temperament for hunting"

"and this impresses Jimbo" How about "impressing Jimbo"

"honorary nephew, which upsets Stan" Mabye "honorary nephew, upsetting Stan"

"As the boys are skeptical, Cartman then decides" Mabye "The boys are skeptical, so Cartman decides"

"scare them" twice is repetitive.

"the others start shooting at him" Who are the others?

"remove his costume." "remove the costume." might be better, not sure.

"some of the South Park residents dig a trench under Randy's guidance to divert the lava" Maybe "under Randy's guidance some of the South Park residents dig a trench to divert the lava" Not sure if that's better.

"the hunting group members try to flee only to find themselves trapped" -> "the hunting group tries to flee but find themselves trapped"

"Jimbo apologizes to the boys for their seemingly imminent deaths" aren't they safe at this point?

  • No. They are trapped on the other side of the trench... — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "felt" is used a few too many times. For example, 'film was featured in Los Angeles; Stone felt, "If they could do it, we could."' Could maybe be changed "Stone said" And "happened after the fart, and they felt it was not funny." could be "happened after the fart, therefore it was not funny."

  • Drops those and a few felts. — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Parker said he did not believe Comedy Central would allow it to air" Should it be "Parker said he did not believe Comedy Central have would allowed it to air"?

"just as it literally was" don't need literally

"The fact that Scuzzlebutt turned out to be a real character" Maybe "Scuzzlebutt turning out to be a real character"

The paragraph that starts "The "Volcano" episode was in production when the pilot episode first aired on August 13, 1997." is a bit choppy in the middle.

  • I changed it to "when South Park debuted on August 13, 1997." Better? — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Parker and Stone recorded commentary track for each episode" Should it be "a track" or "tracks"?

"a combat between" sounds funny. Also, not sure the two sides in the Vietnam Ware have to be explained.

  • Changed to "a military conflict between". — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The moment Scuzzlebutt puts a star" Maybe "The scene where Scuzzlebutt puts a star"

"Jimbo blames the Democratic Party for passing laws that he feels are overly restrictive on hunters and gun owners.[9] Upon learning children are in danger due to the volcano, Mayor McDaniels seeks publicity for herself by contacting the television news magazine programs Entertainment Tonight[10] and Inside Edition.[11]" This part is kind of choppy

The sentence "The song "Hot Lava", sung by the Chef in the episode, was featured on the 1998 soundtrack Chef Aid: The South Park Album.[17]" make the end of its paragraph choppy.

  • I'm not sure how to improve this sentence. Can you give me any suggestions? — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph in the Reception section should have some sort of lead sentence. Something like "The episode was received favorably by critics" or whatever you think describes the critics overall.

  • I think this got removed by accident; it's in the lead but not in the Reception section. I added it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - asides from minor touching finishes, this is a nice, comprehensive article. Also, I bet you could add one or two more images. Nergaal (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - Could you give a .html link for this image, rather than just a .jpg link? Other than that, images look fine. NW (Talk) 04:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Music has gone vacation and I'm handling the FAC concerns for now, although I'm not sure the answer to this one. If possible can you tell me more specifically what needs to be done? If not, and if it's not such a big deal that it would hold up the FAC, could Music fix this whenever he returns? — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose that this is a minor detail, and I will try to explain what I mean with an example:
.html page : .jpg page as
this : [2]
      • I know that might be confusing, but forgive me, it is late. Just pop me a note if you don't understand my (awful) analogy. NW (Talk) 04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is this fixed? If not, could you further clarify for me, or just fix it yourself? I'm still confused...
  • Oppose, 1a and 1c. The prose needs work, as indicated by some of the samples below, which should not be considered comprehensive. There are problems with the research, and the one source I checked randomly has been misused in the article, indicating the need for a full source audit.
    • (Not to be a stickler, but the above user (Peregrine Fisher) noted those were the only prose errors she found ("That's pretty much it"). I believe she is saying that is comprehensive, at least from her perspective. I think I've addressed your below issues, and since this article has gone through a peer review and additional comments here in the FAC, I think the prose fixes we've made would have to be considered comprehensive. Unless you can point out any more errors, which of course we will address and go from there... — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand your point. Just because one editor provides what they consider a comprehensive review doesn't mean another editor won't see other issues. As illustrated below, I easily located issues that Peregrine Fisher missed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I misunderstood (I responded to these comments at work so it's possible I was distracted). I thought you were saying that you felt Peregrine's comments were not comprehensive. I thought you were speaking on her behalf. But I certainly didn't mean to suggest her comments should limit your ability to provide any comments yourself. Sorry about that. — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prose
    • "The episode was inspired by the 1997 disaster films Volcano and Dante's Peak, which Parker and Stone strongly disliked." The "which" is ambiguous here. Consider, "both of which" for clarity.
    • "The episode also parodied the Duck and Cover educational videos from the 1950s and 1960s, which advised people to hide under tables in the event of a nuclear attack." Same problem here, as "which" modifies "videos" but the placement is illogical. Eliminate the problem by removing the comma and using "that" instead.
    • It's overlinked somewhat. Don't link dicdef terms like "lava", "construction paper", "self-defense", and so on.
    • The loophole statement requires explanation. Loophole in what?
      • The loophole is you can kill an animal in self defense, so shouting "it's coming right for us" makes it appear the shooting is in self-defense, even though it is not. I thought this was expressed by the current wording, but if it isn't, can you give any suggestions? — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know what it means, but I was saying I don't think the text is clear. Consider someone reading this whose country doesn't have such laws. Will they know what your meaning is? --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see. I've reworded it, although I'm sure it could still use some work. What do you think of it now? !!!!
    • "During the hunting trip, Jimbo proclaims Kenny as his honorary nephew" Spot the extra word.
      • Thanks for making it a game. ;) Fixed. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The boys then see Cartman in disguised as Scuzzlebutt and ... the boys start shooting at him." When you remove the middle clause, you can see the redundancy.
    • "However, he is unable to do so and this gives Cartman enough time to escape and remove the costume." Try replacing "this" with "the delay" to avoid the ambiguity.
    • "... because the Volcano film was featured in Los Angeles" What do you mean it was featured in LA?
    • "The animators of the show spent the first four episodes of South Park trying to get the characters animated the way they wanted." This is awkward: the animators don't "get things animated".
      • Changed to "perfect the animation of the characters". — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By 'Volcano', Parker and Stone felt the textures of the episode were improved" The "of the episode" suggests you are referring to Volcano... so "By 'Volcano', Parker and Stone felt the textures of 'Volcano' were improved"?
      • Dropped "of the episode" and reworked the sentence slightly. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "'Volcano' generally positive reviews." ?
      • This was added recently as a result of above comments and I think it's pretty obvious a word was accidentally omitted. Resolved. — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Research/Sourcing
    • I'm disappointed in the "Cultural impact and references" section, which sadly lacks either. Why call it that if you don't discuss cultural impact of the episode? And I'm unsure what "references" means. The section is really just a list of pop culture influences that made their way into the episode, correct?
      • I think the title "Cultural impact and references" was used because it not only included the references, but a small account of how the popularity of the episode endured beyond just this episode (the shirts, the famous lines, the game). We used "Cultural impact and references" for this specifically because that is what other South Park articles use and we wanted to maintain consistency, but if you have a suggestion for a different title I am open to it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as why you used the heading, I figured as much. However, we need to make sure the heading reflects what is actually there, over being consistent with other articles. Maybe "Cultural references"?
          • I have no problem with that. Fixed. — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is the first source listed as a CD? Isn't it a DVD?
      • No, it's a CD. As it says in the last paragraph of the production section, the commentary tracks were released on a CD seperately from the DVDs because the networks wanted to censor Parker and Stone and they refused. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I randomly checked one of your sources and found that it doesn't support what you attached it to, which doesn't bode well for the remaining sources and indicates that a full review is needed. You write that Cartman's "'Democrats piss me off!'" is "especially popular among ... fans" and cite the Lowry Variety article, which says no such thing. It merely says the line is "memorable", which is a far cry from what you wrote.
      • I could be wrong here, but I feel that the source is sufficient for the wording in the article. It may not overly state that it's popular specifically with South Park fans but I think the context of the article makes that pretty clear. Plus any South Park fan knows that this is the case, which obviously by itself wouldn't be enough to warrant an inclusion, but Ii felt applying this citation to it along with a little bit of common sense was sufficient. That being said, if you still feel it's a problem I'll remove it. But I don't think it's at all fair or sensible that this one small reference should sink the entire FAC (especially if it's removed). — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't agree that the source is sufficient to back up what you've written. Lowry calling something "memorable" is just stating his opinion. He was in no way stating that the quotation is popular among the South Park fan base. It may not be fair to judge the other sources on this one, but it is sensible. No one said anything about sinking the FAC—I just suggested that if the one source I randomly checked was misused, the others should be checked. I will be looking deeper into the sources in the next couple days. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's fine, sorry if I misunderstood. In the meantime, what do you feel should be done about this particular reference? Should it be removed altogether, or do you think it can be reworked? — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - Would you mind sending me the article text for refs 14 and 15 (Martin and Casimir)? You can e-mail them to me. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. If you need others, let me know. — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, mostly well-written.

  • Right at the top: two misleading "alsos": "It also marked the first of two appearances for Scuzzlebutt, who became a popular minor character and appeared in the mobile video game, South Park 10: The Game. The episode also parodied the Duck and Cover educational videos ..." I'm looking for where we've been told before about first appearances, and then about parodies ... can't find them. This is a matter of false cohesion; simply removing the two offending words will make the narrative run much better. (I think ... try it.) Then further down: "The plot was also inspired by the large amount of hunting Parker and Stone saw ..."; but "inspired" does not appear beforehand. Why not "Another influence on the plot was the large ..."? The "also" is also odd at the opening of a para,, since also is such a strong back-reference and has to jump across the para break. Tony (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your issues have been adressed.--Music26/11 08:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are currently two images of the volcano in the article. Are both necessary? Theleftorium 18:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why not, they have different purposes. Kakun (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. The rationale used in File:SouthPark-Volcano.jpg could also be used in File:Volcano (film) volcano (south park) comparison.JPG. Theleftorium 18:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What does it mean? Do you mean there's a legal problem? The second image compares between the film and the episode, the first one deals with the episode itself. Kakun (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • See WP:NFCC#3: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Theleftorium 18:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • One just shows the volcano and the other shows another type of information, the lava ball coming out of the volcano comapred to the lava ball in the film. If you are still convinced it should be removed, please wait for another opinion. Kakun (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Agreed with Nergaal. Kakun (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't think that new fair use image is going to cut it. It's kinda ORish. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what's OR but I removed it anyways. Kakun (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're talking about original research, there's actually a source to the caption within the article. Kakun (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that image meets the non-free content criteria anyway, as it doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Theleftorium 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's mostly for non free images, but picking which meteor in the episode looks like which meteor in the movie is what seems ORish. Maybe I'm being overly strict in my intrepretation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't try to do that, that movie had lots of balls. Anyway, I removed it, if someone decides to put it back he's welcome. Kakun (talk) 23:20, 1 August 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/Volcano_(South_Park)/archive1&oldid=1136094790"