- Lead
- Info box
- Add a caption for the infobox image.--WillC 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though the lead and any infoboxes are just the opening to the article and the information featured there will be or should be mentioned later on where each statement will be sourced, I feel that the information featured in the infobox right now should all have citations. So please add a ref to each section.--WillC 02:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. But for the life of me, I could not find a decent source (anything other than a tech forum) to support the bit about the show running in 480i for its first 12 seasons. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then remove it.--WillC 00:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh...already had. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Text
- "South Park is an American animated sitcom, created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone for the cable channel Comedy Central." Link American, even though this is the English wikipedia we aren't the US pedia, there are other English speaking countries. Also remove the comma and change the last part of the sentence to "for the Comedy Central television network." Channel seems so unprofessional/out of place. Just to be blunt it reads badly. Hard to explain my feelings about it further.
- "which led to the greenlighting of the series by Comedy Central." Greenlighting is jargon, so be sure to explain it per
WP:Jargon for non-fans or ones not familiar with the on-goings in TV like myself. The rest of the lead is fine.-- WillC 06:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- Fixed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Characters and setting
- "The show mostly follows a group of four boys" Remove "mostly", it is unneeded. Around 90% of the time it follows at least one of the boys.--WillC 01:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All righty. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Themes
- "South Park was the first weekly program to be assigned the TV-MA rating, and is generally intended for adult audiences." The second part of the sentence has me wondering. Should it instead be "South Park was the first weekly program to be assigned the TV-MA rating, which is generally intended for adult audiences." or am I just breathing too much into it and I should take it just as it reads?
- I'm not sure I quite follow. Do you mean maybe it should read "...which is generally assigned to a show that is intended for mature audiences" to reflect what the MA rating means? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind it. I'm thinking too much.--WillC 17:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "During earlier seasons, this speech would commonly beginning with a variation of the phrase "You know what? I've learned something today..."." → "During earlier seasons, this speech would commonly begin with a variation of the phrase "You know what? I've learned something today...".["
- Already fixed this one. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading this section, I now see that the name of the section is incorrect. When I first saw it I thought music, maybe you should rename it too "Running gags" or something more appropriate. The name at the moment does work but I feel it can be renamed to be more straight forward.--WillC 05:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. What else could you call it? A running gag is such a minor device in fiction (in the grand scheme of things), and doesn't adequately encompass everything described in this section. A "theme" in fiction is a much more broad component. How about renaming it "themes and style"? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That will do.--WillC 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Origins
- "Friend and Brian Graden commissioned Parker and Stone to create a second short film as a video Christmas card." → "Brian Graden, Fox network executive and a mutual friend, commissioned Parker and Stone to create a second short film as a video Christmas card." When I first read it I thought you were referring to a network called "Friend", until I finally figured out what was meant. This way it can be avoided for future reference.
- Agreed! Fixed - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The two then entered talks with both MTV and Comedy Central.", "enetered talks" if the main problem here. Change it to "The two then entered negotiations with both MTV and Comedy Central."
- Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe renamed the section to "Creation" to be more direct.
- Well, most of this section deals with events leading up to its actual creation. Re-name it "Origins and creation"? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That will do.--WillC 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the image description show which is Stone and which is Parker.--WillC 06:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense. Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Production
- Animation
- "which are now created using Motion" Gives a small explanation as to what Motion is to keep consistency since the other software has been explained.--WillC 18:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "while others will incorporate other styles of animation." → "while others has incorporated other styles of animation."--WillC 18:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Voice cast
- "Mary Kay Bergman voiced the majority of the female characters until her suicide near the end of the third season (1999)." → "Mary Kay Bergman voiced the majority of the female characters until her suicide on November 11, 1999." This way it doesn't seem like she died in the show, which is what first popped in my mind when I read it and I'm a fan of the show.
- "performance pseudonym Blue Girl." Link "pseudonym".--WillC 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Guest stars
- Fine, I think.--WillC 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Music
- Fine as well, possibly.--WillC 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Title sequence
- Fine, (once again I'm bored so I will leave a uncertin statement to screw with readers) interesting, but possible.
- Distribution
- "Canada on Comedy Network" → "Canada on The Comedy Network"--WillC 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "have been released by Rhino and Comedy Central," Link Rhino.--WillC 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "available for streaming from The Comedy Network's website" Delink The Comedy Network, overlinking from above.--WillC 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ratings
- "1.3 (980,000 viewers)" Damn that seems wrong. As you can see by my name I'm a wrestling fan, and I've dealt with a few ratings. Programs with get a 1.3 usually end up getting near double that viewership. Something must be wrong here. TNA Impact! usually gets a 1.3 and has around 1.8 million viewers normally. The same concern for "8.2 rating (6.2 million viewers)".--WillC 19:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A rating represents what percentage of households with televisions were watching a program. A 1.3 roughly means that 1.3% of homes (with TVs) watched that particular episode (viewership is estimated based on that). This was over ten years ago, and the number of households with TVs has increased since then, thus today there is a higher comparative number of viewers per ratings point. This site explains it better than I do. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Recognitions and awards
- "The same year, Rolling Stone declared it has having been the funniest show on television since its debut 10 years prior." → "The same year, Rolling Stone declared it to be the funniest show on television since its debut 10 years prior." Shorter and makes more sense. I put a WTF face on when I read it.--WillC 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "South Park won the CableACE Award award for" Ding ding Johnny, you are correct the answer is redundancy. It sounds better just as "South Park won the CableACE Award for"--WillC 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs to be changed into what again? (this says to change it into exactly what it already reads...I think) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a double "award".--WillC 05:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. Duh. Don't know how I didn't catch that even after reading it 12 times. Anyway...fixed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Criticism and controversy
- This section would be better as a level three under Reception.--WillC 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "latter claiming it as "dangerous to the democracy"." → "latter claiming it is "dangerous to the democracy"."
- "Parker and Stone were angered by a cartoon Michael Moore included in his 2002 documentary film Bowling for Columbine. The two claim both the cartoon's resemblance to the animation style of South Park and its placement immediately following Stone's interview in the film are intended to mislead viewers into thinking the two had produced the cartoon themselves. Parker and Stone accused Moore of using similar forms of manipulation and deception in his films, and responded by spoofing him in their 2004 film Team America: World Police." What does this have to do with South Park? This would be better in Bowling for Columbine, which I must say is very interesting, or in Stone and Parker's articles.--WillC 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, upon reading it some more, I agree with the Michael Moore thing. I just went ahead and removed it. Fixed the other stuff as well. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cultural impact
- After reading the first two paragraphs I've begun to consider it should be renamed to "Political impact" instead.
- Section seems fine, but take this in mind, move the political information to the end and place it under a level three header with the name I gave above.--WillC 20:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Film
- ""Best Music, Original Song"." Link this.--WillC 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Media and merchandise
- Fine, I think, this one I'm unsure of.--WillC 20:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References
- What makes the following reliable (remember not involved in this area, so some could just be dumb questions):
- My comments regarding the reliability of each source will follow the web addresses already typed below. Any of the edits I mention below are found here and here.- SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on reviews for articles about the characters on this show, I removed/replaced a handful of these from those articles, and meant to do the same here (which I just did...IslamOnline, Buzzle and WorldNetDaily). These just had to be removed because there are already other sources in place for the info they referenced. I replaced the spscriptorium refs (spscriptorium is a fan page) and I went ahead and removed the imdb ref (I'll be the first to admit that imdb can be an awful source). I couldn't find any other source to back up Isaac Hayes's 1999 Image Award nomination, so in the meantime I just removed it entirely. As for the rest, I would consider fairly reliable, since they are not used out of context, and are used to ref mostly uncontroversial material. allmovie, boxofficemojo, and discogs are considered reliable for statistics (they are not user-edited). Macleans reliability was brought into question once, but the article used from that site is an interview with the creators of the show (same with TeenHollywood, which was removed along with the Michael Moore material anyway). Whether or not some of these reference disputable material and are not considered reliable, I will leave to your judgment, and will find suitable replacements. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I must be honest, one big paragraph on why they are reliable has only left me confused. Could you instead just write the reason why under each of them, so this could be a bit more simple.--WillC 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure thing. I'll get to the specifics within two days or so. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if you can get to it now, this is the only thing holding me from passing the article.--WillC 05:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading the explanations for reliability of each, I've determined that I will take the rest in good faith, considering you seem like a person who knows enough on reliability of sites. Usually I re-read an article before I pass or fail it, but since this one didn't have many problems, I'm just going to go ahead and pass it.--WillC 18:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 48 has no publisher.
- Ref 88 has coding problem(s).
- jam.canoe.ca. should be
Canadian Online Explorer as the publisher and "jam! Showbiz: Music" as the work.-- WillC 20:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- All fixed, and I just removed the #88 ref, as other refs support the same statement it did. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further reading
- External links
|