Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Damien (South Park)/archive1

Add links
From 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 15:11, 28 April 2009 [1].

Damien (South Park)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn (contribs) Terrence and Phillip

I am nominating this for featured article as part of the South Park Featured Topic Drive. It just passed as a GA and I'm now pursuing an FAC. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 14:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin and Template:Infobox Television episode is protected. Please have someone change the faulty hyphen between the Title and the Series to an WP:ENDASH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, it turned out to be a problem with Template:Infobox South Park season 1 episode list, which is not protected. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • There is 1 self-redirect, I don't know if its intentional or not.
  • Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) and external links (links checker tool) are up to standards.--Truco 17:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose invalid FU rationale for File:Southpark_ep108_2.jpg Fasach Nua (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you provide me any feedback on what is needed to bring it up to the correct rationale? Obviously, these kind of screenshots are pretty common in television episode articles, including several FAs, so it shouldn't be difficult to get it up to the right rationale... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what the problem is, but my guess is that it doesn't state what part of the article it is used to illustrate, and why an image is needed to illustrate that particular point. Right now it's very general. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried to add a more specific statement to the beginning of the Purpose of Use section. Is this better? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 18:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems better to me, but you may want to ask Fasach Nua on their talk page, since not everyone puts FACs on their watchlist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left him a message and gotten no response, but since this same objection was brought up and struck below (by Sceptre) I can only assume the matter is resolved? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 15:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 amd hence FAC#3, the removal of this image would not significantly decrease the reader's imderstanding of the topic Fasach Nua (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But again, can you give me any feedback on exactly why it fails this criteria? It seems to me that it meets it, and at least one other reviewers (below) has concluded the same. This image has a fair use rationale similar to other FAs for television episodes (includingTrapped in the Closet, a South Park episode). And since the image illustrates the climax of the episode in a way better than words can, I would argue that its removal would decrease the reader's understanding of the topic; otherwise, you could make that argument for the removal of every single image in a television show episode. Again, just looking for specific feedback here on how to bring it up to standards if you feel they aren't being met... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 19:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the points made in the rationale, per the article journalists have described "Damien" as a satire on religion, faith and the nature of good and evil,[7] as well as a commentary on commercialism and the cult of celebrity in American culture.[13] Obviously showing how the animation depicts its main characters goes towards explaining this treatment in a way that text could not adequately impart (and the context in which they are depicted in this screenshot also is toward this end, which is nice). I don't think it can sensibly be argued otherwise. 86.44.27.38 (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: so far so good. Some of these comments are positive, some negative.
    My personal comprehensiveness baseline for episode articles is . For this episode, that would be 20KB. This article is 30KB. Pass.
    Lead section: Good summary of the article. No facts neglected. Pass.
    Infobox: The main objection. Don't explain why the image shouldn't be deleted. Explain why that shot specifically should be used. Be creative. Take any of the four non-free media examples from the article for The Stolen Earth, and base your rationale upon them. You may need to upload a new image to make it work; a good idea for the future is to write the article first; then include an image based on what you have.
    • I added a description to the rationale of the image page itself, but now I've updated the photo caption as well. I still feel that this image is appropriate, and in fact I think it would be difficult to find an image that was better suited for the episode. Let me know if you think this is sufficient, or if you feel it still needs work. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 05:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Plot section: Not too long, doesn't neglect the major plot points. Pass.
    Some minor prose niggles: "like to unpopular" → "like to the unpopular"; "explode like fireworks" → "explode in a shower of fireworks". The latter crops up in the production section too; you might want to fix this too.
    Production, themes, and cultural references: This is the money maker. You should make a good third of the article about the episode being made. And you have. Pass
    Prose: "star of Beavis and Butt-head and King of the Hill" – add a comma at the end; "he was, in fact, supposed to be the actual Jesus" – you don't need "in fact"
    Just a matter of preference here, but I tend to put cultural references as part of the production because they are; the writers don't make them up independently.
    • I think that's a valid point, but unless this objection will hold up the FAC nomination, I'd rather keep it as it is, only because all the other South Park episodes (including several that are already GAs) have the same structure as this, and I'd rather keep it consistent for all of them. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 05:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, it might be wise to include something about Damien's song ("Rectus! Dominus! Cheesy Poofs!"). IIRC, it's a sporiadic running gag throughout the whole series.
    • I didn't realize that actually! But if that's the case, I would probably need a secondary source for that, right? Do you know of one I could use? I didn't come across one in Lexis Nexus or my other searches. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 05:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you can, it'd be nice, but it won't stop me from supporting the article.
    Reception: looks fine to me, if a bit short. You have six reviews, try to write three decent-sized paragraphs if you can. Show what the reviewers really mean.

Other than the image, I'd be inclined to support. But it really is the main objection into what is otherwise a really good article. Sceptre (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - looks fine to me, although I am a little bit wary about the image. However, I think the fair use rationale is sufficient enough for a featured article. Good work! Sceptre (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I don't see how this article can become any better, two questions though; why is Parker's name in bold in the quote box in the "Themes" section? Also, is "taking a dive" (in the caption) really an encyclopedic term? Those two aside, nice work.--Music26/11 13:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I unbolded the name. As for "taking a dive" you are probably right. I changed it to "purposely throwing the fight" but if that isn't encyclopedic enough either, I could change it to "purposely losing the fight"... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 14:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine either way with me.--Music26/11 18:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I was the GA reviewer and I think the article meets the FA criteria. —TheLeftorium 20:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 25 (Grahnke..) is lacking a publisher/publication
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to me the fair use rationale for File:Damien South Park and Omen.jpg seems dubious. I don't see how a visual comparison of the characters helps the reader understand the relationship. There is no suggestion given in the article that there is an visual relationship between the characters, the relationship seems to be based more on the concept of the original character, something the image does not illustrate. In order to understand why one might be said to be based on the other more information about both characters would still be needed. An audio montage of pinhead and satan speaking might be justified as I think it would help show how one voice was derived the the other in a way not possible through text but this image doesn't really help explain the relationship between the two characters in a meaningful way. Guest9999 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, since I put the image there, I obviously disagree. The screen shot is being used for the purposes of critical commentary and discussion. The character is based on the Omen character, and I don't think the concept and visual relationship between the two are mutually exclusive. And I feel the illustration between the two demonstrates this relationship far better than text can. But, as I've said before, the images policy here at Wikipedia is not by any means my strong suit, and I since I wouldn't want this alone to hold up the FAC, I'll drop the image if necessary. Can anyone else leave me any feedback on this, before I delete it? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 14:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the image, I agree there are several similarities between the characters to suggest a visual homage as well as a character homage. I think it's on the right side of NFCC8. Sceptre (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that all sentences that contain a quotation have a citation at the end of the sentence. This might mean that citations are duplicated in subsequent sentences, but that is okay. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right you are. I think I got them all. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 17:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article with good pose, proper image rationale, et cetera. Cheers. I'mperator 17:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, image criterion. I have to agree with File:Damien South Park and Omen.jpg and File:Southpark ep108 2.jpg as not meeting NFCC. For the infobox image, it's simply illustrating a dramatic moment, but this isn't the subject of critical commentary. I think the rationale would have to be on caliber with something like "Meet Kevin Johnson", where it not only illustrates a plot point but a slice of a performance that was the subject of much commentary throughout the article. As for the Omen image, besides not being low resolution I'm not seeing how we need a side-by-side image to demonstrate that one character informed the other; we have the source, that's all that's necessary. It's a minor part of the article, not meeting the significant/detrimental clauses of NFCC. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image also demonstrates the size difference between the two characters, which is crucial to the episode, and an image demonstrates that far more effectively that words do. I've added that to the rationale and the image tagline. I feel especially now, it more than demonstrates why the image is the subject of critical commentary; it now not only illustrates the climax of the plot, but also the physical differences between the characters and the religious allegory of the episode. As for the second image, I and other users feel it is appropriate because it illustrates the visual, as well as character homage. I also honestly feel the article would be worse off without it, which tempts me to invoke Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Would lowering the resolution on the image address your objection? If not, let me know and as much as I hate to do it, I will remove that image, because I think it would be a damn shame for that one picture to hold up this whole FAC... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Illustrating a climax of an episode isn't a valid reason to have a nonfree image, plain and simple. If you can't tell us through text that Satan is big and imposing and Jesus is a weakling, that's an issue with prose. There's really only one substantial sentence of commentary on the appearance in the entire article. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And regarding the test of religious faith? I've heard no response to that yet. Also, if this image needs to be removed, (even though the image currently has much more of a criteria explanation than many other TV episode FAs; see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), what is the solution? This image is probably the single most emblematic one for the episode, so if this one doesn't work, I guess you're suggesting there be no infobox article? (I also shrunk the resolution on the Omen picture.) — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If no other screenshot meets NFCC, yes, then the infobox doesn't have an image. Other articles mean jack. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tweaked the caption again, and removed the Omen picture. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 22:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThe current infobox image with its captions satisfies the fair use images criteria. The image illustrates Satan's muscular figure, Jesus's weak figure and his week punch. The current image with the current caption satisfies all required guidelines. It is an image illustrating the commentary in the caption. When u read muscular figure, you wouldn't imagine Satan to look like that right? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the interest of transparency Hunter Khan solicited the above user's support via his talk page here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, he is absolutely right on this, but I wasn't looking for any undue support, no quid quo pro or any nonsense like that. Just feedback one way or the other. Hope I wasn't out of line, that wasn't my intention. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 04:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I had a look at the info box image, and then contrasted and compared with two examples given from The Stolen Earth and Meet Kevin Johnson. When it comes to TV, I would echo Hunter Kahn and suggest that no TV article really needs a captioned image. Take The Stolen Earth, what do I glean from seeing half The Doctor's face and Rose looking at him? Scroll about a fifth of the way down and you do find a useful image, illustrating the production ideas for the show, an example of a useful image. Alastairward (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it seems to be a point of contention I'll declare in advance that I was asked too by Hunter Kahn [2]. My opinion is genuinely held. Alastairward (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment: the use of the [File:Southpark ep108 2.jpg present] infobox image in THIS article seems very appropriate to me since the episode IS about the fight. Nevertheless, the rational listed under the image could help some clarification/simplification; I believe it should suffice saying that "the image is used to show how Satan and Jesus are represented as characters in South Park". Nergaal (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hunter also solicited this user's comments via talk page notice: [3] --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does this have to do with the quality of the article? Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's fair to bring it to everyones attention, just as long as its clear I didn't ask for any undue support. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 17:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I feel it now meets the FA criteria. Like David mentions, Hunter contacted me on my talk page, but I've been following this FAC the whole time, just waiting for what I felt was a suitable solution to the image issue. I know the believe that issue has been solved. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hunter Kahn asked me to look at the image issue in this FAC because I am working on the South Park Season One Good Topic Drive. I have improved the fair use rationale for File:Southpark ep108 2.jpg. In my opinion, it now meets the standards of WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have asked David Fuchs to take a look at the new rationale. If he is still not satisfied, I am ready to drop the image so it won't hold up this FAC anymore. If we don't hear anything, I'm hoping that means it is now satisfied. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 17:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Couple of minor things:
  • The two South Park episodes chronology templates are redundant to the big season 1 episode list at the top.
  • Is that big Season 1 episode list template in the main infobox really necessary? It takes quite a bit of space, for info that is not directly related to this particular episode. Even so, there are a few MoS errors in that template—the episode names need to be in quotes, and the dash in between the dates should be an endash (–), not an emdash (—).
    • I'm heading out the door right now, but I will take a look at addressing this issue hopefully in the next day or two; if not, definitely by Monday. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 17:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better this way? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. I hope this is enforced as the standard on all South Park articles. indopug (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to have given a more detailed review but I haven't seen the first season yet, and don't want it spoiled. indopug (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this article is very good. It is strange to think that this article once were deemed non-notable. I believe that the lead image is okay and meets the standards of WP:NFCC. Hunter did contact me to comment on the image issue, but as far as I know he doesn't know what position I have on fair use images. Besides that I do have free will to say whatever I want. --Maitch (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding sourcing—why aren't books such as South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today, South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More Penetrating, South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias and South Park Republican (maybe more, I just copied these from Template:South Park) used as sources? I don't think this article can be considered comprehensive if none of them are consulted at all. For eg: see any Simpsons episode FA, where there is quite a bit of analysis from academic books. indopug (talk) 16:21, 27 April 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/Damien_(South_Park)/archive1&oldid=1207942858"