Talk:Kyle Broflovski/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

? Article covers any possible topic on the character. Very strongly referenced. Wonderfully sectioned. The main image's information could use a little improvement. I have a problem with the description page of this image. Also certain spacing through out the article. ISTHnR | Knock Knock  &#124; Who's There? 07:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please suggest what kind of improvements the images and their descriptions need? I'm also uncertain about what you mean by "also certain spacing through out the article". Thanks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As you're looking for it, I'll give my second opinion. Everything's sourced and the sections appear to work well with the information inside them. Overall, amazing work. Just a few little nitpicks:
 * 1) The opening might need a third paragraph due to the length of the article.
 * 2) The last paragraph of "Role in South Park" should be expanded a lot more. I'd suggest giving examples of what exactly Kyle's said, like "For example, in the season 2 episode "so and so," after so and so he remarks "so and so." Something along those lines would help.
 * 3) Another thing needing great expansion is the video game sentence. Add some detail to what exactly he does in the game and that should work.

Hope I did this right, this is my first review. But anyways, those are my only issues. Good job.  The Flash  {talk} 22:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the "Cultural impact" section, a sentence reads "In the show's thirteen seasons, Kyle has addressed topics such as brotherhood,[3] excessive litigation,[35] hate crime legislation,[36] civil liberties,[37] profanity in television,[38] hybrid vehicle ownership,[39] and the economy.[40]" Would it be best to elaborate on this and move/incorporate it into the end of the other section you talked about? Also ...out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the issues addressed by the reviewer seeking the second opinion (the ones about the images)? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't suggest removing/moving it entirely, but still incorporate information of the like. From what I see there, one thing you can add is "Among these include...." and list some of the one's listed in "Impact" already and some more ones. Onto the images, I don't particularly see the issues with the the Matt Stone one, though the profile image might need clarification; from what I read there, it was digitally constructed from screencaps using Vector Magic, no? Elaborate more on it, if so, and that might be what the first reviewer is denoting.  The Flash  {talk} 17:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I addressed all of the suggestions, but only somewhat on the "Role" section. I feel if I list each example of when he's given a "moral speech", it might tread into (here comes that word!...) "fancruft" territory. And if only a handful are listed, on what grounds would they deserve inclusion in the article instead of the ones that aren't included? Any other ideas on this would be most helpful. Someone may want to touch on the expansion I did for the video game portion ...I've never been much of a video game player and am admittedly not the best person for writing descriptions of them. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, sorry it's taken me a bit to respond, anyways, good job with the VG descriptions, after all, they're only supposed to be brief rundowns of their role in it. That's good then. Now, in the "Role" section, what I really wanted to see was an expansion. I figured a good description of how he executed this worked, but seeing it now, this way works as well. I see what you mean by fancruft, we don't want that, so it's all been checked. Everything checks out now, good job. Now, as this is my first review, do I need an agreement from the first review?  The Flash  {talk} 19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's mandatory, but I'd contact the original reviewer, just in case. The more input, the better. :) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've messaged it too him; from my recent reviews, it's best to get the first reviewer's final say.  The Flash  {talk} 16:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Finale
This review was compared next to the Good article criteria
 * Yes check.svg Well-written
 * Yes check.svg Factually accurate and verifiable
 * Red check.svg Broad in its coverage (idea for improvement)
 * Yes check.svg Neutral
 * Yes check.svg Stable
 * Yes check.svg Supported by Images

83% definitely ready for GA status --- Scarce  ||||  Talk  - Contrib. --- 01:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Um..."Article covers any possible topic on the character." And now... "Red check.svg Broad in its coverage (idea for improvement) " ...and this coming after the coverage was expanded per the 2O review. ???? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Further inspection shows the article may go to deep into detail.
 * Can't Role in South Park be broken up into less than six paragraphs?
 * What detail needs to go? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Creation: "Kyle is composed of simple geometrical shapes and primary colors" does that really need to be double referenced?
 * Ref 12 is the source for "geometrical shapes", ref 15 is the source for "primary colors". I personally think, aesthetically, footnotes are awkward when appearing mid-sentence and not following punctuation. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article, at certain points, tends to describe episodes too much.
 * Removed some episode descriptions that weren't really essential. The only other episode descriptions exist to elaborate on one of the more the critical aspects of his character (he's the "Jewish kid", which often comes into play), and to describe one of the statements of "real world" notability made on the show (the creators' views on censorship and political correctness). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The template for the infobox seems kind of messy
 * "Seems kind of messy" how? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * --- Scarce  ||||  Talk  - Contrib. --- 05:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Other feedback
I'm dropping by as discussed on the GAN talkpage, to share some thoughts on the article. Thank you to The Flash who I see has already provided a second opinion. Another perspective can't hurt, and could have some things that may've been missed. The Flash brought up some very good points above. Having gone through the article, I've mainly concentrated on images, and sourcing.


 * Images:
 * The first image seems appropriate. It is not solely decorative in my view, acting as a recognizable visual cue, clarifying and supporting geometric illustration style and characteristic costume—both covered in significant detail within the article.
 * In the non-free use rationale source description you say the 'original image was ... traced and re-drawn' - by whom? It's probably worth clarifying. (This makes it a derivative work, but it's used as a non-free image in any case, so that's okay.)
 * The source information reads "Original .jpg image intended for free distribution found at Comedy Central Press." Saying 'intended for free distribution' could be confusing, since it doesn't mean released under a free license. It's probably easiest to point out the photo is courtesy: Comedy Central, coming from their site's Press section for promotional purposes. The 'Other Information' field ties in here. I think going over the text of those two fields together to eliminate any repetition or contradictory points will help.
 * You've said "Vector Graphic" under Low resolution. The documentation suggests using text "SVG will be rendered at low resolutions" for the Low resolution field; up to you.
 * Also, your answer to "Replaceable?" is "Only with other images that qualify as grounds for fair use". The question is a bit unclear, it actually means 'Is it replaceable by any free-use images?". You'd typically answer 'No', briefly giving your reasoning.
 * The rationale "better illustrate[s] the character" is somewhat weak. While I believe the image is used under a valid fair-use basis, a stronger rationale would be good. This "Dispatches" article on Reviewing non-free images has useful advice and may be of use.
 * These non-free use rationales have never been easy for me. Take a glance to make sure I did everything right. I'm still confused about the "Replaceable?" field; wouldn't any image of this characters technically not be free? Could it be replaced by any suitable non-free alternative? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, dropping in by request. @SuperFlash101: Still your review, I'm just replying to a couple've finer points asked about image use. :)
 * The changes you made are right on track. Good job. Okay, onto the "Replaceable" field. In the rest of the rationale, you explain how you limit as much as possible the extent to which you use the non-free material, and that the use will not affect the owners of that commercial property profiting from it down the line. Alongside that you state what's depicted and why it's being used.
 * The "Replaceable?" field, is for explaining why no free equivalent could reasonably be obtained or created to provide the same understanding provided by this image. If a free alternative could do the job just as well, then there wouldn't be a valid basis of non-free fair use. Here, it's not probable they'll relinquish all the associated copyright and trademark rights into the public domain, so no free alternative will come along in the forseeable future. In contrast, say there's an article on a recent non-animated television episode. A non-free screenshot of an actor during an episode, assuming no unusual costume or makeup is involved and discussed in the article, could be replaced with a free image of the actor such as a fan's snapshot outside an awards show or a picture taken by a fan in the street. I've tweaked the field wording accordingly; feel free to adjust.


 * You're on the right lines with the purpose statement (the valid "allows for identification of the character"), though to improve it you need to tie it to the article more, explaining what it depicts, beyond just the character in general, and why it's necessary to use it. So, for example, further illustrating key design decisions covered in the article, and playing a significant role in the reader understanding that coverage. I've given it a stab; feel free to change it. –Whitehorse1 10:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The second image may not meet the non-free content criteria. It appears to be used for illustrating the distinctive "Jewfro" hairstyle discussed in the article; the term "Jewfro" is wikilinked to an article. Aside from the hairstyle, the image is generally the same as the first image and thus likely does not provide extra information unavailable here or in the wikilinked article (which has its own free-use image).


 * The prose is very good. I've done a copyedit of the article, generally to improve phrasing or remove redundancies. If I made any errors due to unfamiliarity with the topic, please feel free to fix them.
 * One thing I noticed is the use of qualifiers ('commonly', 'tends to', 'frequently', 'often'), a lot. These are vague and reduce the impact of writing. In this case this may be something hard to avoid, but please take another look at the use of these.
 * Some other thoughts:
 * Kyle and his role as the lone Jew has received many references… This is phrased awkwardly.
 * You refer to the 1999 feature film in the lead, but don't name it there. It may be worth doing so, as you give details about it such as year of release and length.
 * After the lead, the article's first section begins in an in-universe style (though the section title might be out-of-universe). Although as the section continues, a real-world perspective is introduced, this may still be worth tweaking.
 * Gerald appears to be a caring and rational father The phrasing suggests uncertainty. Is he?
 * The opening sentence of paragraph two in 'Personality and traits' section repeats points from the 3rd paragraph of the 'Role in South Park' section.
 * His commentary on these issues have been interpreted as statements Parker and Stone are attempting to make to the viewing public. Awkward phrasing. Also, interpreted by whom?
 * Those who share a common political stance with those expressed by Kyle and other characters Is a word missing before 'those'? (Also suggest adding a 'who' before 'prefer in the next sentence?)
 * Fixed most of this. Would you suggest rearranging the "Role in South Park" section so that the IU info comes after some of the RW stuff? (the IU provides a basic backdrop; he's in 4th grade, has Jewish upbringing, etc.). I removed the "His commentary...", as the reader can determine that for themselves (based on all the info about books written about the show, etc.) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah. It's a harsh world out there; ease them into the RW stuff. *g* It's brief, plus it provides context. Looking at that, I agree with your removal too. Those points are kinda implied by the other bits anyway. –Whitehorse1 10:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A Good Article should be built and referenced using reliable third-party secondary sources, with primary sources appropriate in certain circumstances. The sourcing looks good. Here are my thoughts / suggestions on some individual reference sources:
 * You could add the work title 'Encyclopedia of World Biography' to the Advameg, Inc., source data.
 * The 'digizine' reference authored by Stephanie Jorgl is a dead link for me.
 * The YouTube reference, a video with the creators, should be either free use (a fan's recording at a fan conference for example), or the official YouTube account of whoever produced it (e.g. those being interviewed or conducting the interview). I don't know whether it is or not. In other words, please check to make sure you aren't using a source violating any copyrights.
 * I'm unsure if the InsideCRM (#34) reference is a reliable source (having reputation for accuracy & fact checking). It is used though as a supporting reference in a sentence with multiple other reliable sources, is not used to support any particularly unusual claim, and so I'd say it's probably okay. Ditto '"The Cornell American", a campus newspaper.
 * Missing the ISBN on the South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today source.
 * You can wikilink Open Court Publishing Company on the Richard Hanley title; up to you.
 * I'm ambivalent whether TeenHollywood.com is a reliable source. It's a commercial org, but not a news company; their About Us pages though state much information is provided by the celebs and their agents themselves, and that their network hosts several official site of celebs, giving examples. It is used as 1 of 3 citations on a single sentence and may not be vital anyway.
 * The New Times Los Angeles is as far as I can gather a (now-defunct) published newspaper, and so is acceptable as a source.
 * I removed the Advameg and YouTube sources, as the were additional refs to reliable sources already in place. The InsideCRM source actually is the sole source for one specific bit (that Kyle presented a monologue about profanity in TV), so I will try to find a suitable replacement. As far as TeenHollywood is concerned, I'd consider it reliable, since the article is an interview with the show's creators (see similar discussion/review) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems fair enough and sound to me. The ultimate decision is in the hands of your erstwhile & swift reviewer, but those're my 2 cents at least. (I'm always happy to give my opinion. ;) –Whitehorse1 10:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's about it. Nice article! :) –Whitehorse1 23:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the extra input (and your help regarding the discussion about...well, you know). I'll definitely try to attend to this within the week (if no one else does). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Final review
Alright, I think this article is ready to pass, but there's a problem I just spotted - the entire second paragraph in the "In other media" section is unsourced. Can someone fixed it? I'll be able to pass this if that's fixed, I believe.  The Flash  {talk} 16:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you find sources for the "Stone performs as Kyle on tracks for Chef Aid: The South Park Album and Mr. Hankey's Christmas Classics" ? Also, for the books, wouldn't it be easier to put them as "References," then change the current Reference section into "Notes." That way, you can just use "Arp; Devlin (2006) p. 23" in stead of "Arp, Robert (Editor); Devlin, William J. (2006-12-01). South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today. Blackwell Publishing (The Blackwell Philosophy & Pop Culture Series). pp. 23. ISBN 978-1-4051-6160-2." Those are my suggestions to clean this up further.  The Flash  {talk} 20:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All righty...done and done. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Refs now formatted and neater, I'm now happy with them. Final go-over to see if it passes:
 * GA review (see here for criteria)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Information on the movie and it's soundtrack is unsourced in the Media section
 * Got it - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I've fixed some small, extremely tedious reference issues, but the media section needs the other citations. Great job, all in all, though.  The Flash  {talk} 23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I've fixed some small, extremely tedious reference issues, but the media section needs the other citations. Great job, all in all, though.  The Flash  {talk} 23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've fixed some small, extremely tedious reference issues, but the media section needs the other citations. Great job, all in all, though.  The Flash  {talk} 23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Article now passed.  The Flash  {talk} 01:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, and thanks for the review! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)