Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Park (season 13)/archive1

• Comment While a good proportion of the article is prose, I think this might be better suited as a
  30 Rock (season 1) are both FLs. wackywace 19:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There was discussion among the WikiProject and elsewhere about this back when we were debating whether to nominate it for GA or FL. We ultimately went with the former because although it includes a list of episodes, I feel this article is presented much more like an article than a list, not only because (as you say) it is mostly prose, but because of the general structure of the article. I felt the same way when I nominated
    Parks and Recreation (season 1), which is similar in structure and was ultimately approved as an FA. — Hunter Kahn 20:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Ok, thank you for clarifying this. I have struck through my comment. wackywace 21:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This isn't just a list, it's a full-fledged article with a list in it, much like
  Smallville (season 1). Definitely meets FA criteria. —Noisalt (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Refs 1, 2 and 3: Why are you using three different "episode guide" sites to confirm dates? Also, ref 2 cannot be accessed by readers from UK and Ireland, according to the site.
  • I eliminated all but one (dropped the one that cannot be accessed by UK and Ireland readers). — Hunter Kahn 22:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 4 et al: The "TV by the numbers site carries this message from its publishers: "Gorman and Seidman acknowledge that they’re still total newbies (even after being at it for two years now), but with your help, they hope to learn." Is this a site in which we should place confidence?
  • I strongly believe so. This has been discussed before, and the site is commonly used for Nielsen rating information. I know that acknowledgment on the site (which I think Gorman and Seidman only put up so people won't give them shit, personally) makes a lot of people question it. However, this site is used as a trusted resource by multiple sources and publications, including The New York Times (other examples here and here), NPR, The New York Post, CNN, Salon, E!, New York Daily News and others. And, for all the modesty of the site creators, there's really nobody else who looks at the Nielsen numbers as in-depth as they do. — Hunter Kahn 22:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't press this, unless other editors pursue the point. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 21: Comedy Central is not a printed sources and should not be presented in italics
  • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 25-27 and others: Same point with IGN
  • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 29: same point
  • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 41: Why is "Clique Clack" a reliable encyclopedic source?
  • You're right. Dropped it in favor of a link to the official SP site. (Although this may present the same problem as below.) — Hunter Kahn 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately this denies access to UK and Ireland readers. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I can look for alternative sources, but I know for a fact that for some of this stuff, there is no other reliable source. But is this really necessary? I understand of course that it's not ideal to have a source that can't be viewed by a large amount of people. But off-line sources can be accepted
        in good faith, and those are more difficult to verify than these links... — Hunter Kahn 01:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Actually, could you check something for me? In an attempt to avoid future linkrot-problems like the iF Magazine thing, I've started archiving all the websites that I use and including those links in the citation. Could you tell me if those links work? Or if they continue to show you access denied? — Hunter Kahn 04:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 42: access denied per ref 2
  • I've updated the link (it had changed, apparently), so I think this addresses the problem. 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Access still denied, I'm afraid. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 43: The italics issue again. Please check through; if the source or publisher is a printed journal, magazine etc then italicise, otherwise don't. There are many cases I've not listed, inc. Fox News, MTV News, BBC News etc.
  • I've combed through the article and I think I've gotten them all. — Hunter Kahn 23:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 61: The link does not go a page with the indicated title. Also, why is http://www.pwinsider.com/article/42410/vince-mcmahon-appears-on-south-park.html?p=1 a reliable encyclopedic source?
  • Can you double check the site again? When I click on it, it leads to Mike Johnson's article, which DOES have that title. And as far as the site, it's not my cup of tea personally, but I believe it's reliable based on the experience of their writing staff, plus the fact that the site has been referenced repeatedly on major sources ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc.) — Hunter Kahn 23:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 64 and 65: in what physical form do these refs exist?
  • They don't, but for some reason the website URLs were missing. I readded them. — Hunter Kahn 23:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and unfortunately added to the "access denied" problem. The South Park Studios site is not available to UK and Ireland readers. The denial notice reads in full: "Due to copyright and other legal restrictions, South Park content from this site cannot be viewed in your country." I've no idea what that means - I thought the web was "worldwide". Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was this solved?
        Nergaal (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Ref 67: Publisher information lacking
  • Added. — Hunter Kahn 23:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 76-78 and others: I'm a bit confused by "iF Magazine". Is this the Sci Fi mag? If not, can we have publisher details?
  • This was an online magazine. Unfortunately, "link rot" has struck, as the website is now defunct and the links are all dead. I may be mistaken here, but my understanding was that dead links don't equal failed verification, and that the citation without the link is still sufficient for verification, assuming
    WP:AGF can be extended that the text of the article is reflective of the source. (And since those citations were reviewed in the GAN and GT process, I think that indicates it is.) But, like I said, I could be wrong here, this has never happened to me. If I have to remove the iF Magazine stuff altogether I will, but I don't think that's the ideal solution. — Hunter Kahn 23:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'm also not sure what is the best solution here. My general feeling is that if a source no longer exists and can't be verified, it oughtn't to be used. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, I've removed all the iF Magazine stuff. It really didn't affect much since I could find multiple sources for most of it; the biggest difference is that I had to cut a bit from the Reception section. — Hunter Kahn 01:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 87: link does not go to a page with the indicated title.
  • This, too, seems to be link rot. There are other sources that include the information this ref referred to, so if I have to eliminate it altogether I will. In the meantime, though, I've removed the link. — Hunter Kahn 23:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 106: Add note that the reference is in Spanish.
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 23:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 107: Why the "official" tag? Was 42 unofficial?
  • I don't know why I put it there, but it's gone. — Hunter Kahn 23:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 113: What is "DVD Times"? If it is a website it needs to be linked for access/verification purposes.
  • It is a website, and unless I'm mistaken, it's presently linked. — Hunter Kahn 23:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't relate this link to anything called "DVD Times". Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've fixed the publisher/website.
        Nergaal (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Subject to resolution of the above issues, sourcing and citation are OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later sources comment: I've carried out another check, and the outstanding issues per the above appear to have been resolved satisfactorily. Some changes in ref numbers are slightly confusing for me, but I am pretty sure that all in now well on this front. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -

• I have strengthened the wording of the fair use rationale description, in part based on similar wording at the Supernatural season 2 image, the wording of which was the result of discussion at that article's successful FAC. — Hunter Kahn 22:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The oppose stands, the 13th season of South Park existed before the DVD release, and this image adds little to the franchise or this article. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, Fasach Nua, I know you've blanketly opposed fair use images of these kind in past FA reviews, but I don't feel it's fair to do so in this case. Cover art and promotional material are considered acceptable under
    you don't like the use of these kind of images. If you're not going to provide any further specific feedback, I'm afraid I'll just have to take my chances with your opposition vote in place. — Hunter Kahn 21:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • All that being said, I'd be happy to hear from others about whether they agree or disagree with the image's fair use rationale. — Hunter Kahn 21:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the only actually image of the show used in the article; a reader that is not well aware of the show would at least get a sense of who are the five characters in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the intro, and would also get a sense of what type of animation is used in the show.
  Nergaal (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've expanded the caption for the image.

Nergaal (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Based on the comments by both Fasach and David below, I've removed the image. — Hunter Kahn 01:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose stricken Fasach Nua (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The article looks good. It's good to see a season page actually get real information to support "article" classification as opposed to a simple list. I even support the image. I'm tired of seeing image opposes for TV articles in the infobox when you don't see the same thing used against film articles for their posters - which hold about as much additional understanding as a DVD cover art. I think Hunter adds enough to the fair use rationale for the infobox image, though I'm a firm believe that the image in the infobox is not the same as an image in the body of the article. Which is why all film article's have poster or DVD images in the infobox. As for link rot, per
  WP:LINKROT#Keeping dead links).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support Everything looks really good! Well done.--AlastorMoody (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I did a quick run through, looks good. --Matthewdavies (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Further Comment Kayne makes a brief reference to fishsticks in the song "gorgeous" from his New Album might be worthing mentioning. --Matthewdavies (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is currently mentioned at the page for the individual "Fishsticks" episode. I think it's more appropriate for that page than it is for the season page, especially since commentors on this page suggested a lot of the celebrity comments should be scaled back. Thanks for bringing it to our attention though! — Hunter Kahn 18:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dab/EL check - No dabs, no link problems, though I'm concerned about whether using a google cache as a archiving method is a good idea (ref #96). --PresN 23:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must have missed that one. Switched it to WebCite like the others. — Hunter Kahn 21:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I have to agree with Fasach Nua in this case; I'm hardly a non-free media hater, but I don't think the DVD image passes muster. The Supernatural FAC discussed earlier is a bad example, IMO, and it doesn't transfer to South Park, as the illustration of the characters is not the subject of significant critical commentary, the poster is not representative of an arc that is the subject of commentary. Film posters are I think a different matter entirely, as they are readily identifiable and tangible marketing that exists throughout a film's theatrical release and later play roles in the home video releases. A DVD cover, as compilation of episodes after their run, doesn't have the same weight. Considering the home release has barely a paragraph, you'd be hard-pressed to discuss it as a significant portion of the article necessary for illustration.

On the prose side of things, it seems puzzling to me that critical commentary on the episode is outweighed by tabloid journalism on what celebrity X said about episode Y. There's not enough variety in the sources used for this, and I'm concerned about what appears to be statements that go beyond what sources say, for example "The incident received considerable press coverage and drew further attention to "Fishsticks", which Comedy Central re-broadcast for two straight hours on September 15, 2009" just isn't supported by what the IGN review says[7]. I'm also not comfortable with plot summaries unsourced outside of explicit plot sections, for example "Fatbeard" featured a song "Somalian Pirates, We", in which Cartman and his crew of pirates sang about Somalian piracy in the style of a sea shanty from the classic era of piracy", et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • While I don't entirely agree, your point about the lack significant critical commentary with relation to the image is well-taken, so I have removed the image from the infobox. As far as your other comments, I removed the phrase "and drew further attention to" with regard to the "Fishsticks" item, and replaced it with wording that better jives with the source. With regard to the "Fatbeard" song, I added an additional source and reworded it to remove the phrase "sea shanty", the specific phrasing of which wasn't included in the source, and replaced it with more general wording that the song was in the style of the stereotypical golden era of piracy, which I believe is reflected in the two sources. With regard to your comment about the celebrity responses and the lack of variety in sources, I'm afraid I'll need a bit more direction on what needs to be done here. Are you asking me to shorten the celebrity response section? Something else? I do not believe I'm neglecting any sources with regard to season 13, so I don't feel I could add any that are missing. Please let me know and I'll get to work on it. — Hunter Kahn 01:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The elements about celebrity responses just seems far too detailed. It could easily be summarized in much smaller sections for each person; while I'd have to say that since reliable sources covered it, it's worth mentioning, I don't think "What Celebrity X said" should outweigh awards or critical reception. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've scaled back a great deal of the celebrity section, removed a lot of detail. Right now the section is about the same as the critical commentary, but let me know if you feel it needs more trimming. I tried to keep the Mexico and USS Bainbridge stuff mostly intact because I felt that was more significant than "Celebrity X said this", but if you feel it needs further scaling back I can do that too. — Hunter Kahn 21:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's better. Since what I've brought up as serious issues have ben resolved, I'm striking my oppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note, I don't see that any reviewer has spotchecked for
  WP:Close paraphrase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I believe the GAN review and previous PR checked these things to at least some degree, but I agree, it should be done here as well. In any event, I'm quite confident this article has no problems in these departments. — Hunter Kahn 16:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spot-checked statements supported by current ref #s 18, 24, 27, 32, and 35. I didn't really see any issues with excessively adapting sentence structure or evidence of plagiarism, however: " Nevertheless, only Parker received official writing credit. " is not being supported by ref 27; "... who are initially angered at the competition from Katie and Katherine, but end up falling in love with the women and marrying them." is not supported entirely by ref 32; and "and in "Pee", when he drowned in a tsunami of urine." is not supported by ref 35. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks David! As far as the unsourced bits, the part about Kenny's death and the T&P marriage were remnants of info that was previously sourced by iF Magazine, which has since
        linkrotted away and were removed earlier in this FAC review. I've just cut those bits. As for the part about only Parker getting credit, I had assumed that didn't need to be cited because the end credits of the episodes themselves are sufficient as a primary source. His name is absent from the credits, but I don't think there are any sources that would specifically point out that absence. In any event, I've removed that bit too. — Hunter Kahn 20:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]

• Oppose – Sadly. Removal of infobox image makes no sense and now fails
  FA Criteria 3, the article now contains not a single image of the show itself, the characters or anything from the actual show, just an image of the creators and a person who was spoofed in a single episode, and not even an image relating to the circumstances, just a random image from a concert where he's grabbing is balls. This is clear hate on images perfectly satisfying NFCC. Take a look at any number of featured season articles, they include one, one didn't have an infobox, and two or three have an image of the cast, next to that literally every featured season article has an image of the DVD box or cover thereof. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Support – Image issue aside I support this FAR, consensus weighs pretty clearly towards including this image, will most likely be added back, don't want to uphold this nomination based on this rather trivial disagreement. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Alright...I'm confused. lol. We have oppose votes now due to the inclusion of the infobox image, and oppose votes due to the exclusion of it, both of which citing the same policy. (Personally, I am in favor of keeping the image, as I feel it satisfies the fair use rationale. However, I'm not sure that
    consensus. Perhaps the FA delegates can weigh in? Frankly, since I believe all other actionable objections have been addressed so far in this review, I don't think it will be fair if this issue alone sinks the FAC. — Hunter Kahn 20:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It has been specifically rejected at
      WP:WIAFA that articles require images. The absence of images has never been a very strong reason to oppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Note: Seeing that David Fuchs has scrapped his comments on opposing the image (still opposes due to other stuff), the only person opposing this image is Fasach Nua who has shown to have a blanket objection against these images. The DVD cover has the characters on it and significantly contributes to the article that way. Despite the fact that FA articles don't have to have images, the lack of even the simplest image with the characters makes this article lack any visual aids which can be present under NFCC and are on every other featured seasonal article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't scrap my oppose on the image, I struck the comments because they are not applicable at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for striking some of your comments, David, but I still need further direction on the unstruck comments. I had responded to some and asked for further clarification on others, but as far as I can tell you haven't responded any further yet. — Hunter Kahn 22:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll try and take another good look tomorrow (my ArbCom candidacy kind of sidetracked me, I'm sorry you're getting shafted as a result.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No problem, I didn't realize about the candidacy. Take your time and best of luck! — Hunter Kahn 23:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, that's weirdly done, my mistake then for misinterpreting someone striking there comments. So currently two people (Fasach Nua and David Fuchs) believe the image does not satisfy NFCC, one of those who has a blanket opposition against these images, while four (Hunter Kahn (nominator), Nergaal (nominator), Bignole and me) believe it does. Taking into account the four (
        Supernatural (season 2)) FA which all have a DVD cover/box image and had them during the FAR passed. Not to mention the 60+ featured season lists that passed with a DVD cover/box image. I believe that this shows that concensus clearly weighs towards inclusion of these images and shows that they satisfy NFCC. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 00:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Perhaps it would be useful if you could explain to us what the basic concepts of South Park (Season 13) you are struggling to understand. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not "struggling" with anything. But I believe, and have shown, that consensus is pretty clearly against your clearcut hate towards these representative images. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • So the omission of the non-free DVD cover has not been detrimental to your understanding? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, the lack of visual aids hurts the quality of the article, making it not up to par with the rest of wikipedia, let alone FA. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks! Fasach Nua (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I believe the absence of the image would be detrimental to the understanding of a reader who has never seen the show (or was not particularly familiar with it) and does not know what the animation looks like. That poster art included images of the characters (set against a backdrop presenting the show's thirteenth season) so it would provide an illustration of the show's animation style that cannot be as adequately described in words. But that's just my opinion. — Hunter Kahn 22:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This would be better as a featured list.
  Fatuorum 01:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This has already been addressed above, and in past consensus discussions. There is more than enough content here, all of which backed by verifiable reliable sources, for this to be considered an article rather than simply a list. The amount of prose and the structure of the article also make it more appropriate for FA than FL. Furthermore, it's not at all uncommon (as stated above) for season articles of this type to go to FA rather than FL, so I don't think an oppose vote based solely on your opinion that it would be better as a featured list can be taken very seriously. Is there anything else to your oppose vote other than this? — Hunter Kahn 02:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The task at hand is to decide if the submitted article meets
      WP:FA Criteria or not, whether or not it would be "better as a featured list" is neither here nor there Fasach Nua (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Quite, and in my judgement this article fails criterion 2, in that it does not follow the MoS guidelines on embedded lists, which in this case takes up about half of the article.
        Fatuorum 13:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I'm not quite following you. This article follows
          WP:TVMOS, which says episodes may be presented "tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section (approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines)".) And as you can see above, season articles with lists like these are not unheard of for FA. Further, your original statement was that this would be better as an FL, and now you are saying it's an MOS problem. These two statements seem to contradict each other; if it's really an MOS problem, how could it have been appropriate for featured list status? (Also, while it feels like a minor point to defend, the list does not take up "half" the article. By my count, the episode prose is about 2,195 words, while the rest of the article is 4,175, meaning the prose outnumbers the episodes list by a 2:1 ratio.) — Hunter Kahn 13:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
          ]
        • The table takes less than 30% of the table, even after excluding the intro.
          Nergaal (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
          ]

• Support It definitely meets the standards of other season articles that have been promoted to FA in the past. I personally feel that the DVD cover should be included in the infobox because, as stated above, it is fairly significant in conveying the animation style of the show. But, considering the differing opinions above, I do not believe that including it or not including it is a fair reason for me to oppose. Silverseren^C 15:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Query: until now how many users are in favor of the DVD image, how many are neutral, and how many are opposed?
  Nergaal (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In favor I suppose we should just list ourselves? Silverseren^C 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I thought going through the review and see what everybody said is ok, but self-listing is probably more clear.

Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• As far as I can tell, there are five users who have voiced support for use of the image (Hunter Kahn, Nergaal, Bignole, Xeworlebi, Silversren) and two against it (Fasach Nua and David Fuchs). However, I'm torn on what to do about all this. On the one hand, I feel there is a fair use rationale for this image (as I've stated above) and I think its inclusion does increase readership of the article, plus I feel there is a
  WP:CONSENSUS developed there. Thoughts? (I have asked Fasach and David ([8] and [9]) to read this suggestion and weigh in.) — Hunter Kahn 17:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(*) - Note, personally, I feel if we go with option 2, and there remain no actionable oppose items beyond this image, that the article can still be passed even though there is an

South Park (season 13). It would just be a matter of readding the image, or not, after that discussion is done. — Hunter Kahn 17:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Sorry for taking so long to get back here. I'm personally not really comfortable with acquiescing on this image because, as the supporters of it have brought up, FAC is a patchy case-by-case basis and if this is going to continue to be an issue than it's spiraled out of what should be done on this page. I'd say that the second option is a better idea; let me know when the NFCR goes up so I can swing by and hopefully we can get a broad swath of content editors to hash this out and prevent further wordiness on pages like these in the future. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree – Since there's no consensus on the image, and it's a single, underwhelming issue, I think we should all agree that the presence or absence of the image shouldn't affect this nomination. We can do the NFRC aside from this nomination, with the understanding that the FA will follow it. —Noisalt (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm fully in agreement, particularly with the condition that everybody here in the FAC agree to the final result at the NFRC (which I'll start once the FAC is archived). Thanks all; it's nice to see compromise in motion! :D — Hunter Kahn 22:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - This is blatant case of

The article hasn't been edited for six days, how is it not stable? Silverseren^C 00:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think he's suggesting that the article is not stable now because it remains an open question whether the image will be readded or not. However, since there is an agreement here that the participants of the FA will abide by the decision from the forum discussion, I don't think stability is a problem. The image will either be added, or it won't, and then that's that. And Fasach, regarding your comments, I'm sorry you feel that way. But I hope you understand that this was in no way meant to be disrespectful to you or the FAC, but rather an attempt to reconcile the conflicting opinions about the image and come to a reasonable
  WP:CONSENSUS and gone ahead and added the image back... — Hunter Kahn 00:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If you want add the image back into the article, that is fine, there are both assessments made for it being included and for it being not included above and the delegate can weigh those assessments as to whether the article meets the FA Criteria. What I object to is getting the article passed in FAC and then immediately altering the content dramatically through a forum shopping back door, and thinking FA status can be retained. When you speak of consensus, you are simply referring to a consensus that exists in one place and at one point in time. The Consensus of the Wikipedia community is established over long periods of time is reflected in the organisation's
  WP:NFCC, no-one here is arguing that the inclusion of this image meets policy, even the principal detractor of the images removal is stating the usage fails WP:NFCC 8. In the sense of a traditional encyclopedia it can be argued that the removal of the images reduces quality, however this is not a traditional encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia with a m:mission and the removal of this image clearly furthers our mission and enhances the quality of this free encyclopedia. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I see this withdrawal as a sign that you see consensus is against you and try as much as you can to sabotage it. Please don't incorrectly twist my comments so that they suit your point. Just because I don't struggle with the South Park concept, characters and animation type (because I watch the show) does absolutely not mean that the image fails
  WP:NFCC#8, by that logic no image can pass that criteria as someone already knows what the subject is (image of a car? someone known how it looks. Image of a person? someone knows how that person looks). This image is detrimental to understanding the characters, the animation etc. Just because I'm familiar with the subject of the article does not mean the image does not achieve this for other readers. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "If you want add the image back into the article, that is fine, there are both assessments made for it being included and for it being not included above and the delegate can weigh those assessments as to whether the article meets the FA Criteria. What I object to is getting the article passed in FAC and then immediately altering the content dramatically through a forum shopping back door, and thinking FA status can be retained." Look, all I've been trying to do is come to a compromise to reconcile the conflicting opinions about the photo license. I meant for this NFCR route would be more fruitful than simply restoring the photo, and David agreed. Perhaps the FA delegate can specify when they close this nomination whether they consider the NFCR route acceptable or not, and if not, whether the discussion here represents a reasonable
    WP:CONSENSUS that the fair use rationale is acceptable. (For the record, that proposed rationale can be read here.) In any event, I hope that the FA delegate acts soon, as I don't think this discussion is going to move any more forward, and only risks becoming uncivil if it continues much longer... — Hunter Kahn 01:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Note this is why FLC and FAC processes are going down: there are a few cynical users that make it their personal project to shoot down nominations just because they have nothing better to do than bicker at every comma that is missing. In the end, fewer successful FACs and FLCs (partially because of these cynical reviewers) drive editors away from wikipedia altogether, and the only ones remaining will be the cynical old hags debating over how to "improve" the MOS (even though there will be almost no articles reaching those thresholds).
  Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Completely agree with you. I too have faced these issues, regarding BS like not having sufficient "rational" to have a cover for a single article. Its absurd. I'm taking a look now and I'll vote soon enough. Good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The only person I see making things difficult and lengthening the process is Fasach Nua with his/her baseless comments about NFCC and forum shopping. I strongly oppose his comments, not only through this FAC, but through all the FACs where the user has placed such comments in general. Fasach Nua, in the politest way possible, if you do not understand these basic requirements of NFCC, then please dont be a burden. As for the image, I strongly recommend the re-addition of it, as it significantly increases the reader's understanding of the subject. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the article thoroughly and I sincerely believfe that this can be an independent article and not a list. So the FAC nomination seems logical and the delegates should decide the outcome accordingly. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - If the delegates could hold out for a few more hours, I have a quick question I'm asking my co-nominator. — Hunter Kahn 15:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As a comment from NFCC, there is a consensus-based standard that a single non-free identifying image for a copyrighted work (properly licensed and meeting all other NFCC requirements) is appropriate for an article, even if the image is not discussed or adds nothing directly to the understanding of the work. Yes, this doesn't jive with one interpretation of NFCC#8 which requires closer examination of the image with the article text, but at the same time, the more common interpretation of NFCC#8 is that the image is being supported by the existence of the text of the body of the article. We've tried to make this stronger at NFCC but simply can't do it - consensus just doesn't want to move past that - and so FAC should follow this de facto policy. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I finished looking through the article. No major issues at all. I do not think this is a list, as most of the article is discussing other basic and background info than an "episode list". I think that aside from some c/e errors here and there, this article reads well and is very informative on the subject. I agree with Legolas, I don't agree with the removal of the image. I think it added quite a bit for readers.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note about the image. I've gone ahead and restored the image, with the fair use rationale previously discussed. I had tried the above proposal (which is now struck) as a good faith compromise, but a suggestion was made (also in good faith) that this was not the right path to take, that it could be construed as forum shopping, and that it would be best to restore the image and let the FA delegate weigh the arguments accordingly. Since that time, there has been even further support for the image voiced, including claims that the exclusion of the image would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of the article. Weighing all this, I truly believe there is a consensus that the fair use rationale for this image is appropriate, so I am restoring the image as suggested, and will accept whatever judgment the FA delegate decides. (Please note, I have also reached out to Fasach and David, the two objectors to the image, to let them know of this action. I fully expect both will reinstate their oppose votes as a result, and I respect that, and will leave it to the FA delegate to decide.) Thanks, and sorry this has been such a mess. — Hunter Kahn 18:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The use of the non-free image
  WP:FA Criteria 3. The image came into existance significantly after the subject of the article, and therefore the use of this image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, nor would its omission be detrimental to that understanding. The image shows the name of the show, which we already know from the text. The only arguably realistic information is the appearance of the characters, however I feel it is unlikely that a reader would come to this article without either watching the programme, or having come from the main South Park article, in which case we can reasonably assume that the reader is aware of basic characters and animation style used in the serial. I find it unfortunate that this article will not be promoted, given that the all obstacles regarding other criteria seem to have been overcome, the hard work put in by User:Hunter_Kahn and that in the past this image had been removed and that the article had met FA Criteria 3. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I respect Fasach's opinion here and accept it. However, I would like to respond to "I feel it is unlikely that a reader would come to this article without either watching the programme, or having come from the main South Park article, in which case we can reasonably assume that the reader is aware of basic characters and animation style used in the serial." I personally don't agree with this. One could say of any article that most readers coming into it are already at least somewhat familiar with the subject. Does that mean images are never appropriate in those cases? I feel the same about nobody ending up in this article unless they followed the main South Park article. There are any number of alternate ways they could end up here, and I don't think we can make that assumption, and even if we did I don't think its a legitimate argument against the fair use rationale. Further, there are plenty of people, I feel, who would be reading this article who much not be familiar with the show. People from other countries who don't get it; people years from now after the show is canceled; people who are fans of Kanye West, Jonas Brothers, etc. any of the given subjects discussed in this article that are not part of the main South Park page. And, last but not least, I'd like to point out Masem's argument above, which I don't believe anybody has countered yet. — Hunter Kahn 15:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing specific to season 13 in the image, the characters are the same as any other season, the animation style is the same as any other season, it really doesnt bring anything to the article. As for countering Masem's argument, it's nonsense and unworthy of response, and if he is serious about what he says, then he should seek a change in Wikipedia policy, and not expect FAC to follow the ideas swimming around in the back of their head. Fasach Nua (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the fact remains that without an image displaying the animation, there is nothing to illustrate the show, the character or the show's distinctive visual style, which would be detrimental to the understanding for the reader of this article. Since this cover was chosen by the series producers to be representative of the thirteenth season, I feel it's the best candidate to provide that illustration in the context of the season. — Hunter Kahn 18:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • If this is a serious concern perhaps you could merge all the serial articles into the main south park article, and achieve minimal use that way Fasach Nua (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm not sure if this is a serious suggestion or a sarcastic one, but I feel that would obviously raise a whole ton of other problems and would be inappropriate for a large amount of reasons. But in any event, I've said my peace (piece?) on the image fair use rationale. — Hunter Kahn 19:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear FAC directors until now I can only see only two oppose votes based only on the image, while there is a clear majority of users supporting the use of the image. I would appreciate if some director would step in and prevent users from becoming disruptivenot constructive. This nomination should be about consensous, and I can count 7 users who are fine with the current use of the image, not including two nominators.
  Nergaal (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • For the record, I don't believe anybody has been disruptive. I do, however, hope an FA delegate makes a ruling very soon, as I feel we've talked this one out as far as it can go. — Hunter Kahn 21:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Support. Some of the text seems repetitive. For example,

The episode "Fishsticks" gained a particularly large amount of media attention,[64] with some critics declaring it one of the best episodes of the season.[64][67] In the episode, Jimmy wrote a joke that becomes a national sensation, while Cartman tried to steal the credit. Rapper Kanye West failed to understand the joke, but could not admit that he didn't get it because he believes himself to be a genius, a reference to West's perceived ego problem. Within one day of the episode's broadcast, West responded on his blog, claiming he enjoyed the episode but that it also hurt his feelings. The reaction generated significant media attention.[68][69]

Within a couple of sentences you have the phrases "gained a particularly large amount of media attention" and "generated significant media attention", about the same episode. In addition, in the next paragraph you write:

The day after "Fishsticks" aired, West wrote on his blog, "South Park murdered me last night and it's pretty damn funny. It hurts my feelings but what can you expect from South Park!"

However, in the previous paragraph (above) you've already mentioned West responding on his blog that he's feelings were hurt. Was there a reason for this? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In your first example, the second reference to media attention referred to West's reaction, not the episode. However, your point is well taken, and since that part is addressed in the "Celebrities" section anyway, I've removed it. I believe that resolves your second point as well. — Hunter Kahn 02:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that takes care of it. I like the article as a whole; I really think even things like the episode summaries should be sourced to reliable secondary sources, but there is apparently as yet no consensus that plot summaries need conform with
    WP:V, so I now support this nomination. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Additional note from FAC delegate: I recognize that this nomination received a good amount of substantive support. However, I don't feel there was consensus to promote due to unresolved opposition over fair use media and list status. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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