Wikipedia:Peer review/South Park (season 1)/archive2

South Park (season 1)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because when it was nominated for FAC the only problems were copyright issues. I hope to fix those so this can become an FA.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• I'm very sorry to keep you waiting... a few projects in the wings have been keeping me from working on much else right now. I haven't had time to do a full review, but I'll post what I've got so far so there's stuff to chew on while I slowly get back up to speed. Anyhow, overall a fairly good start.
  • First things first: BURN File:Trey Parker Matt Stone 2007.jpg WITH FIRE! It's used on way, way, way, way too many South Park articles. There has got to be some other image, hell just another angle from the same talk would be nice, but it's starting to get tedious to see the same damn image on all these pages. It's pure decoration that starts getting in the way after a while. If you can't find another free image... don't freak out.
    • I have somewhat of a similar feeling, but there is really no other file on commons with the two of them... I don't really like articles without any images at all... Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Now that I've gotten that out of the way... could you cleanup the nasty white artifacts around File:SouthPark season1.jpg? Since it's not filling up the infobox the random corner whitespace is annoying. Not a legislative issue, just an aesthetic one. I'd really like to see a custom rationale for the image description page. Why is the image low resolution? As for the source, no one is going to call up Fox Home Entertainment for the box. What's the URL (aka the actual source the image was found at)?
    • Ah, it took me a bit to figure out what you are referring. I'll use the one from amazon. Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. Nergaal (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Season one of South Park, an American animated television series created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, began airing on Comedy Central in the United States on August 13, 1997." → Wouldn't the more natural way of saying this be "The first season of American animated series South Park [...]"? Especially if you aren't going to be bolding per WP:BOLDTITLE. Parker and Stone can be mentioned plenty of other places in the lead, they don't need to smashed into the first sentence.
    • rephrased. Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Several episodes have received award nominations" -- at this point, they're unlikely to get that many more. In writing unless you've got a good reason, it's best to keep it past or present. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • fixed. Nergaal (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Television critics gave the season mixed reviews..." I'm not sure about cherrypicking quotes for the lead, but if you are going to keep them, they had better actually be attributed inline.
  • "The idea for South Park originates" → You should keep the same tense for all this stuff; since it's historical, I suggest simple past.
  • In terms of general writing practices, there's places throughout where you can condense some things and chop out fluff to improve flow, for example: "The low-budget, crudely made Jesus vs. Frosty film featured prototypes of the main characters of South Park, including characters resembling Cartman, Stan, and Kyle." can be shortened to "The low-budget, crudely-made Jesus vs. Frosty film featured prototypes of the main characters of South Park, including Cartman, Stan, and Kyle." (or "characters resembling the main characters of South Park"). Similarly, "The video became popular and was widely shared, both by duplication and over the Internet".
  • "who befriended a talking stool"→it's not clear until the end of the section that "stool" in this case is not referring to the furniture item. I suggest some clarification.
  • "The executives were receptive to the idea"→Not entirely clear we're still referring to Comedy Central here.
  • "The show appeared as part of a reaction to the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s in the United States, in which issues such as Murphy Brown's motherhood, Tinky Winky's sexuality, and The Simpsons' family values were extensively debated. The culture wars, and political correctness in particular, were driven by the belief that relativism was becoming more relevant to daily life." This isn't gospel, it's one scholar's opinion. Unless we have sources that the creators intended it to be a reaction, you can't really phrase this information in this light. "One scholar explained,[clarification needed] thatSouth Park "made a name for itself as rude, crude, vulgar, offensive, and potentially dangerous". Its critics argued that the Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny were poor role models for children while its supporters celebrated the show's defense of free speech.[9]"→People need to be named here. Who are these scholars and critics?
  • "The network liked the script and agreed to commit to a series when Parker and Stone said they would not write another individual episode script until they signed off on a season of at least six episodes.[7]¶

Comedy Central originally ordered only six episodes of South Park for the first season's initial run." → This comes off slightly clunky and redundant as closing and opening sentences of different paragraphs.

• • ""Pinkeye", the first of those new seven episodes to be produced, was first aired on October 29, 1997, only two and a half months after the show's premiere."→First off, more redundancy stuff ("the first of those new seven" can be shortened to simply "the first new"). Secondly, why is two and a half months worth the "only" modifier? If there's no context to how long animation usually goes, it's a junk detail, and can prolly be lost.
  • "earned a Nielsen rating of 1.3, translating to 980,000 viewers, which is considered high for a cable program in the United States." → Do we have any indication it is still considered high? Many recent cable shows I've followed have been canceled after dipping below 1mil viewers, so it might be an outdated factoid given the expanding demographics.
  • "It increased slightly by the third episode, "Volcano", but by the sixth episode, "Death", the show had reached a 1.7 rating." → Why is a "but" necessary?
  • Considering the Parents Television Council is an advocacy organization with a vested interest in hyperbole, I would not use it as any type of indicator of critical review.
  • I think the review section suffers from the lack of reviews. It either needs good sources that provide a historical view, or it needs a broader selection of the contemporary sources.
  • ""Volcano", the season's second episode" isn't it the third episode everywhere else (including in the section right below it)?
  • "Citation needed" tags in the awards section.
  • I'm not sure about the plot summaries for the episodes. Each episode has its own article with a full synopsis, and these plot summaries are all unsourced.
  • "South Park - The Complete First Season was originally released by Warner Home Video as a three-disc region 1 DVD box set in the USA on November 12, 2002, received an MA rating" → comma splice

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)