Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starvin' Marvin (South Park)/archive2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 17:18, 15 September 2009 [1].

Starvin' Marvin (South Park)

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I've nominated this one before but at the time, the consensus appeared to be the information and sources were fine, but there were some grammatical issues. Through a peer review and some copy edits from myself and other editors, I think those problems have now been addressed, so I'm nominating it again. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per

WP:ALT. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Park (season 1)/archive1 for some ideas (perhaps including some ideas about what not to do...). Eubulides (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment—Why is Sally Struthers discussed in 3 different sections of the article? (apart from the plot and the lead) I think some restructuring may be needed in order to cut down on the repetition. For starters, I think the stuff from Reception should be removed wholesale from there, and merged into another section.

  • I've removed the bit about Struthers in the Cultural references section since you are right, most of that information is repeated from Production and it is a bit repetitive. However, I think the rest of the structuring is appropriate. The part in "Production" deals with their writing and implementation of the parody into the episode. "Themes" only mentions her briefly with regard to the episode's theme of gluttony. And the part in "Reception" deals with Struthers' reaction to the episode upon its release, which strikes me as a natural for that section. That being said, do you have any more specific suggestions for further restructuring? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, assuming this is the commentary you are referencing, I feel you are skirting the boundaries of

original research
in interpreting the creators' comments. For example, I'm not sure you can interpret Parker and Stone as "remorseful" unless secondary sources say so.

  • You may be aware of this already, but that YouTube link is in fact only a three minute sample of a 22 minute commentary track (the entirety of which can be downloaded here). Right around 12:45 is the bit where they do in fact say they were remorseful. The exact quote: "We did feel bad for how we treated Sally Struthers here, and we felt bad when she found out that she cried and everything." — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Struthers was particularly upset with the fact that her character steals food from the same starving children she had been working to help"—not mentioned in the commentary.
    • Right around the 18 minute mark, they address this. At this point they are discussing the specific part in the movie where she is eating their food. Parker says, "This is what she got really upset about. She was basically saying, the fact that we were saying she was collecting all this money just so she could have food." A little afterward, Stone addresses it a bit further. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although in typical South Park fashion they have not apologized"—there is nothing about what constitutes "typical South Park fashion" in the commentary.
  • "Struthers was portrayed in an even less flattering way in the third season episode "Starvin' Marvin in Space" as a Jabba the Hutt-like creature"—and neither is this. indopug (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it is. Right after the above 12:45 quote (about them being remorseful), they say "We had her in another episode a couple years later where we made her even fatter and she became Jabba the Hutt. She was so fat that she just was Jabba the Hutt. It was so sweet." They also identify the episode by title ("Starvin' Marvin in Space") right around 13:25. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - On the prose, which looks solid.

Another SP article. How fun

"Ethiopian child whom they dub Starvin' Marvin. Cartman is accidentally sent to Ethiopia" can you add a "later" or a "then" or something to start the second sentence?
"residents to fight back, in a parody of the film Braveheart." is the comma needed? Not sure.
"The episode received generally positive reviews and is considered a classic South Park episode. " switch order? Not sure.
  • I'd rather not, if only because other episode articles use this kind of wording and I'd rather maintain consistency. But again, if it's a big deal, let me know or feel free to change it yourself. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"viewed by about" maybe "roughly" instead of "about", since "about" is used twice in the sentence.
"included only because they felt obligated to include a B story." two includes
"The episode reportedly deeply offended Sally Struthers." sounds funny. How about "Sally Struthers..."
  • I used this wording to avoid the passive voice with "was offended", but since it doesn't flow well, I've changed it.

Otherwise, lead looks good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"do not particularly care about the cause" is "particularly" needed, or do they kinda care?
"genetically engineers"?
"show and tell" do we have a wikilink?
"During a prayer" "While praying"?
"Chef dons war paint like William Wallace in the film Braveheart" can you add a secondary source for this?
  • Is this really necessary? If so, I'll add it, but my understanding is inline citations are to be avoided in the plot summary section, and this information is cited elsewhere in the article... — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first five sentences of the "Production" section are a bit choppy.
"although celebrities would be killed off in future episodes" maybe "although celebrities have been killed off in subsequent episodes"

More later. Looks really close, though. If you don't feel a suggestion is an improvement, don't do it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply—I had no idea the YouTube clip was just a preview. I had listened to a number of the later season commentaries and those are all only 2-3 minutes long (correct me if I'm wrong). So I assumed that the commentary for this episode was only that long too. Further comments—
  • According to its own article, the use of Third World to describe the poorer nations of the world "is widely disparaged since the term no longer holds any verifiable meaning after the fall of the Soviet Union deprecated the terms First World and Second World." So we should replace the term.
  • "the African nation Ethiopia, which is famous for its two famines from the mid-1980s."—it seems very dismissive and rather offensive to suggest that an entire country is only famous for its famines. The source you need to cite for such a claim would be a scholarly Ethiopian history/politics book, rather than just a news report.
    • I absolutely did not mean to be dismissing or offensive, and apologize if I did. I changed the wording to "experienced two famines", rather than to say it is famous for them. I would think this wording is less problematic and should be sufficient with the current source. Is this better? — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cite Error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named Englund."
  • "Parker and Stone said the character is not named after the Starvin' Marvin's brand of American gas stations, and that the similarity between the two names is just a coincidence." The source you cite just says "I live in Pensacola, FL. We have a Starvin' Marvin's gas station here. Did Trey and Matt know this and name Marvin after that or is it just a cow-inky-dink? That's one hell of a cowinkydink!" There's no indication that this was said by Parker and Stone. Also, considering that you are citing an often tongue-in-cheek primary source (and I have no idea what's a cow-inky-dink), it might be best to leave out this tidbit of information.
    • I can (and did) change it to reflect that this did not come from Parker and Stone necessarily, although I think they do screen those answers, if not write them. I suppose I could remove it if you think it doesn't belong though. Take a look at the new wording, and if you still think it should go, I'll cut it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the DVD release info related to the production of the episode? I suggest renaming Reception to Release and reception, and moving the DVD paragraph there.
  • "is considered a classic South Park episode" not sure this is exactly established in the rest of the article. Further, considering that it is presently agreed—even by the creators—that South Park's earliest episodes aren't anywhere as good as the later ones, I doubt this statement has much merit. It sure as hell ain't "Scott Tenorman Must Die". indopug (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this can be addressed by changing the wording in the lead from "is considered a classic episode" to "several reviewers have described it as a classic episode", which is what the wording is in the body of the article anyway. As far as what you are saying about the classification, I understand your logic and I don't necessarily think it's one of the best episodes either. But we do have multiple sources here characterizing it as a classic episode, so I think it warrants inclusion even if you and I don't necessarily agree... — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure the changed wording is an improvement, to be honest. (For one, the words 'review' and 'reviewers' in the same sentence makes for bad reading.) And that doesn't really solve the problem I had in the first place. By calling it a classic in the lead, we imply that it is commonly considered a masterpiece episode, which is not true as many series overviews of South Park (i.e. lists like "Best Episodes/Moments Ever") don't really mention this episode at all. The two references you use to cite this (#17 and #18) are both from 1999. To validate it as a classic you would need a consensus of sources from much later, when it can be compared to more of the show's canon. I suggest just describing it as a highlight of the first season in the lead; if you disagree, you can revert to the previous version of the sentence. indopug (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed it to "commentators" to be less redundant. As far as the classic versus non-classic issue, I still feel like it should be in the story, or at the very least in the reception section even if not the lead. First of all, I think there is a difference between a "classic" and the best episodes; I would never argue this episode is better than "Scott Tenorman Must Die", but you could argue it's more widely known (especially among non SP-fans) and had an important early impact on the show. But putting that aside, more importantly, I think we're getting into our own opinions here. Whether you or I think of it as a classic, the fact is there are legitimate sources that describe it this way; and I have at least two other sources from more recent (2004 and 2008) that also describe it this way, which I've now added to the article. I'd rather it stay, but all that being said, is this an issue that would prevent you from supporting the article if it did? — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further— I believe this is getting close, so allow me to be pedantic and nitpicky.

  • (I think you missed my comment above in between Peregrine Fisher's) Is the mention of Braveheart in the plot section necessary? It doesn't improve the reader's understanding of the plot, especially if they haven't seen the film.
    • I suppose you are right. I had added it because it was such a big part of the episode, but since it's thoroughly covered in the Cultural references section and mentioned in the lead, I suppose I can drop it from the Plot summary. Done. — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • South Park Studios (official site) shouldn't be italicised or linked. (Since the South Park article to which it redirects carries no information about it.) If you are citing any other websites, they shouldn't be italicised either.
  • "after which she was very upset and reportedly ... was particularly upset" Reword "upset".
  • "although they have not apologized"—how do you know they haven't apologized? If its just by the fact that they didn't "we are really sorry for what we did" in the 22-minute commentary, you are inferring things. Also, although they probably didn't, how do you know they haven't apologised to her elsewhere? If you can't find a secondary source to back this up, I suggest rewording to: "did not have anything against Struthers personally. However, they portrayed Struthers in an even less-flattering fashion in the third season episode "Starvin' Marvin in Space" as a Jabba the Hutt-like creature."
    • Well, they said in the commentary that they didn't apologize. They also made a joke to the effect that her portrayal in "Starvin' Marvin in Space" was the closest they've come to an apology. But I suppose they could have apologized and just not said it, or maybe they've apologized since it was recorded, so I dropped it as per your suggestion. (I used "Nevertheless" instead of "However". If you don't like it, feel free to change it.) — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you use quotes within quoted material, it should be in 'single quotes'. For eg: "4-disc "Rings" could take up a whole weekend" → "4-disc 'Rings' could take up a whole weekend".
  • References are inconsistently formatted. Ref 5 has date at the end, while the others have it in brackets next to the author. Also, while I don't think it absolutely necessary that newspaper refs contain refs page numbers, when you cite books it's kinda mandatory (refs 4 and 15). Refs 10 and 18 are duplicates. indopug (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed the duplicating ref. Regarding the books, I assume you are talking about page numbers? I'll get those, hopefully tonight or tomorrow. As far as the inconsistent formatting, I'm using Template:Cite news and other appropriate templates, so I think they are as consistent as possible. I think the reason Ref 5 has the date different than the others is because the others have author names, but this one does not... — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support—This article was very good when it got here, and I think it became FA-worthy once it was slightly restructured to remove redundancies. I still have one concern though—the use of the term "poorer countries", which I have expressed in a reply above. I am sure you will be able to come up with something regarding this too. Good luck for the FAC! indopug (talk) 13:17, 7 September 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/Starvin%27_Marvin_(South_Park)/archive2&oldid=1136095420"