Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Park (season 13)/archive2


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 00:44, 4 January 2011.

South Park (season 13)

 * Nominator(s):  Hun ter   Ka  hn   and Nergaal 14:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This article was recently nominated for FA, but failed due to opposition to the use of the DVD cover as an infobox image (previous fair use rationale archived here). While I strongly disagree with that outcome, the image has since been removed, and since this was the only real problem voiced with the article, I've brought it back here. I have permission from the FA delegate to renominate the article so soon. As for South Park (season 13), this article has passed GA, gone through PR, and is the anchor article for a GT, and I believe it's ready for FA. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  14:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Request to reviewers: since last time there was a problem with the consensus about the fair use of File:South Park season 13.jpg, it would be really nice if all the reviewers explicitly express their opinion about the use (in hope of reaching a broad consensus). Nergaal (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The cover's back. No opinion at this time on its use. J Milburn (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article lacks stability 1(e) Fasach Nua (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated on your talk page, I've reached out to the user who readded it with the hopes of stopping the adding and readding of the image and stopping any stability issues. As you yourself know from past experience with this article, there are no stability issues with it except for about the image. Hopefully, the next few days will reveal that any potential stability problems have stopped altogether. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The image has been re-added and removed again 21st December Fasach Nua (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The image has been re-added again 28th December
 * Speedy close it is impossible to review this article while the content is in a constant state of flux, this is the fifth time in twelve days this image has either been added or removed, it is impossible to have valid reviews when the current state of the article may not reflect the state of the article at the time the original review was written Fasach Nua (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would suggest that it's perfectly simple to give those reviews, since the only thing that is in a "constant state of flux" is the image. Everything else in the article has been consistent for months and months; the only problem is, most people are focused on the image, not the content of the article, including yourself. (I mean no disrespect; I too am frustrated with that particular situation.) I have taken the advice of the FA delegate and asked multiple people to review the entire FA content of this article, rather than just the image. I'd appreciate it very much if you, Fasach, would consider doing the same. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  20:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note, Fasach Nua, your vote (as below, I use that term advisedly) will be ignored, since it's not an FA review, it's an idiosyncratic, irrelevant, and (frankly) disruptive dispute about image copyright, and is irrelevant for the purposes of this FAC. And I must say, its rather disingenuous to claim "it is impossible to review this article while the content is in a constant state of flux". The only thing in "flux" is one image, and that's pretty much your doing; everything else is completely stable. Also, you haven't attempted to "review this article", you've just voted on what you believe to be the copyright status of one image. Please strike your vote, and take your issue to the appropriate forum. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  20:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I personally think the article fails to be comprehensive without a visual depiction of the characters involved in the show. I agree completely with the rationale provided in File:South Park season 13.jpg, and think the article can't stand on its own without it. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I share your opinion about the specific rationale language provided last time around, I should point out I don't think this is a valid reason to oppose. A similar oppose vote was given in the last FA nom, and it was pointed out that the absence of an image is not a valid reason to oppose, as WP:WIAFA has specifically rejected the argument that articles require images. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Reiterate from last nomination Take the image to a separate process, because we won't get consensus either way here. Handle the nomination independent of the one image. The one image does not affect "stability" which applies to the fundamental stability of the article. —Noisalt (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's due to the lack of consensus on the image that I've now removed it. I considered taking it to the NFCR as I had proposed last time around, but the FA delegate suggested against it, as standards for just about everything are stricter at FAC, so getting a consensus there might not necessarily translate to here. I agreed with him, and as far as I'm concerned, the removal of the image resolves the image issue altogether. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If consensus would be reached at NFCR to include the cover, then FAC couldn't simply ignore that. FAC can't have rules which goes against the general consensus on wikipedia. P. S. Burton  (talk)  20:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – I have to say that I resent the way this nomination was handled, while I support the inclusion of the image, I believe the consensus on the previous FAR was to include the image, to use the words of co-nominator Nergaal "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" or co-nominator Hunter Kahn "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" and now yet another user (Gyrobo) has shown support for the image. I have to say that I understand the actions of the nominators to get this article to FA status and regret it previously failed. But the image issue was not the only reason it failed, from FA delegate Laser brain "I don't feel there was consensus to promote due to unresolved opposition over fair use media and list status ", I disagree with it being a list rather than an article but feel this nomination is handled inappropriate with no regard for consensus in favor of just passing FA. On that note, I still support this FAC.  X  eworlebi (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out the bad precedent the exclusion of this image would create. My understanding of a DVD, film or TV show is harmed without seeing the cover art. If cover art isn't acceptable in this instance (to illustrate the characters and the show being critically discussed), when is it ever acceptable fair use? --Gyrobo (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is acceptable fair use when it meets in full the requirements of WP:NFCC, it should be noted that this in not an article about the show, it is about the 13th season of the show, if you want to read about the show there is an article dedicated to South Park which does include non-free content showing characters and drawing styles. (I wouldn't worry too much about precedent the default case is to use only free content, however we sometimes use non-free content in exceptional circumstances and this usage is considered on a case by case basis). Fasach Nua (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "however we sometimes use non-free content in exceptional circumstances" that is complete nonsense, have you ever looked at any of the other FA seasonal pages, literally any of the FA film articles, FA episode articles, etc.? If you did, (here are the media FA's are if you didn't) you would see that they pretty much all have a non-free-fair-use image, with pretty much the only exception being those were copyright has expired. And yes this is about season 13, which the DVD is also about and the creators chose that image on the DVD to identify it. If you want to see precedent, take a look at the other seasonal FA articles: Parks and Recreation (season 1), Supernatural (season 1), Supernatural (season 2) and Smallville (season 1).  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: I gave the OK to sources on the previous nomination and I don't think anything has changed. However, it is not usual to find an article renominated here only a couple of days after its archiving. Was some special dispensation given by delegates? Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dispensation here Fasach Nua (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support both Image and nomination - I supported you a few days ago, and I still feel comfortable supporting. As for the cover, I think it definitely should be included.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   09:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Right now, the consensus of the community for images like this DVD cover is documented in WP:NFCI#1. There is discussion at WT:NFC to try to see if there's a reason to change it (and that includes understanding the history of where NFCI#1 came from, and why there's been more recent at-odds issues with it due to how NFCC#8 should be taken).  But an FAC discussion page is not the place to try to effect change without causing larger problems.  There is no reason to exclude this image per standard consensus now, though I strongly suggest if you have an opinion either way on how NFCI#1 is taken, to take that discussion to WT:NFC. --M ASEM  (t) 17:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop this, please! This discussion, much like the last one, is no longer about the quality of the article and about the conflict between those users who prefer the image and those who don't. I had thought the discussion in the previous FAC would be over once Masem, an often contributor to WP:NFCC talk page discussions, pointed out very clearly the reasons why the image should be kept and why it didn't violate NFCC #8. However, none of that matters. The inclusion or the removal of the image has little to nothing to do with the promotion of this article. I find this debate between FAC users discouraging, considering that it is highlighting the failures of the entire FAC process as it is currently. The discussions here have gotten just as bad as RFAs do. Silver  seren C 18:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Thanks for edit conflicting me, Masem. :P Silver  seren C 18:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I fully support this page as a Featured Article. I would prefer to have the DVD image in the article, as this would be the first FA season article that did not have an image in the infobox. Other than that, my original support for this article was because it met the criteria (whether with the image or not). It was comprehensive, it was well written, it was well sourced. It's a spitting image of what a featured ARTICLE on a TV show's season should be. It's said that there is such a huge debate about this image, and shame on those that are holding up this article's FAC with isolated debates about whether it should be here or not. Go to the NFC page and debate it there, and then make changes across season pages. Until then, you'll see that this page deserves its featured status.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved from User talk:Gyrobo

Hi Gyrobo, it's Hunter Kahn, co-nominator of the South Park (season 13) FAC. I understand why you readded the image, but please do not do it again, as doing so will only fuel arguments at the FAC discussion that the stability of the article is a problem. The last FAC failed specifically because of the presence of that image, so it should be discussed further at the second FAC before it is simply readded. Also, I understand why you are concerned the image could get deleted if it remains off the page, but I have archived the fair use rationale on my talk page, so if there is a decision to readd it in the future, we can easily do so and use the rationale. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. I understand the frustration because I too feel the image should be used, but a lot of people have worked hard on this article, and I'd hate to see the FAC sink solely because of the image and stability problems. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the desire to have hard work validated in some way, but without that image, it would really be a Pyrrhic victory. The article would be significantly less informative, lacking the cover art that culturally identifies the show and season. There's no textual substitute for that, and if it became an FA that way, you'd probably feel that you failed to make the article as good as you possibly could. As pointed out in the FAC, blanket opposition to non-free images (in this particular case) violates WP:NFCI. The quasi-edit war over the image is a direct result of the FAC, and has no bearing on the stability of the article; the dispute is over a policy, not the content. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly encourage your comments about the lack of an image being detrimental to reader understanding, the lack of a textual substitute, etc. etc. over to the FAC discussion. There have been many comments there about the image, but few are focusing on the original fair use rationale language, which is at the heart of what you are saying. (Also, it would probably be best not to split these discussions, as I did respond to your oppose vote over at the FAC page.) However, I can assure you that if edit wars continue over the image, editors will vote against the FAC over stability. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Although I stil strongly believe the image is necessary, i weas thinking of an alternative. What about free images of the voice actors? Are they availoable? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 13:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The voice actors aren't a visual part of the show, and aren't promoted in any artwork for the show. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, there is an image of the show's creators/voice actors in the "Crew" section right now. However, I don't believe it's appropriate for the infobox because, unlike the previous image, it's not representative of the season as a whole. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The article is in very strong shape overall. I read through and copyedited, encountering few major difficulties along the way. Sourcing is good and a quotation/paraphrase spot-check revealed no problems. I have only three substantive queries:


 * [Lede:] Missing image.

Without the image of the DVD cover, this is not representative of our best work. It is an essential identifier and mnemonic for the article's specific subject, and its absence detracts significantly from the article's quality. The image's inclusion--and the fair use rationale that supports it--meets the spirit, the letter, and the community standards established for the execution of our NFC policy. Let's look at the three pillars of that policy:

(1) Supporting production of perpetually free content: Given its particular encyclopedic purpose, the image is not replaceable by fair content nor by any content with a reasonable likelihood of being made free. I can imagine other non-free content that might serve a comparable purpose—such as, for instance, a screenshot of a scene described by critics as the season's most important—but the fact is that for purposes of consistency and conceptual reproduction, widespread consensus has developed that a DVD cover, when available, is the most appropriate primary identifier and mnemonic for an article devoted to an individual season of a television series. Turning to our NFC guideline examples, this sort of usage is clearly covered by Acceptable use—images and is clearly not covered by Unacceptable use—images.

(2) Minimizing legal exposure: There is obviously no legal problem here. Indeed, the copyright holder would almost certainly be happy to have the image appear here, because it makes the item they derive profit from easier to identify and more memorable.

(3) Facilitating judicious use of non-free content: It is clear that in the community's wisdom this sort of usage is considered judicious, well within the parameters of our policy, and vital, even necessary, for our best work.

It is distressing to read through this FAC and the previous one and encounter specious claims of "stability" problems and "forum shopping" regarding this matter. In the last FAC, as well, the blatantly false claim was made that "no-one here is arguing that the inclusion of this image meets policy." I hope there will be no such prevarications in this FAC. In my analysis, the image does meet policy, and by a considerable margin.
 * I agree with most of your points, particularly the fact that it is false to say nobody was arguing that the image inclusion met policy. I felt that it was clearly articulated in the first FAC why it met policy, and that the merit of those arguments were not disputed. However, the FA delegate made a determination in that FAC that there was not a sufficient consensus that the image met policy and/or that it warranted inclusion in the article. Given the stringency of the FAC process, I don't think there's a better authority to give a determination like that, so I don't feel comfortable restoring the image unless the FA delegate in this FAC specifically determines that there is now a consensus that the image be added. If that happens as a result of this FAC, I will more than gladly put it back. But if not, I won't. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe it is the job or the custom of the FAC delegates to specifically determine consensus pertaining to specific article elements, but rather to determine consensus about the article's overall qualifications for FA status. As a proactive FAC reviewer, I am ready to address any problem with a candidate article—especially with an article close to deserving of FA status—that I feel capable of addressing. I am capable of addressing this problem. I see no good reason not to. So I will.—DCGeist (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the problem.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * [Writing:] "Parker and Stone wrote [...] the thirteenth season episodes..." [my emphasis]

The section goes on to detail their collaborative writing process. Yet we see in Episodes that Parker received exclusive writing credit for every episode. I should think it would be possible to track down some commentary somewhere on why Parker received sole credit. If that proves impossible, you'll need to figure out some way of acknowledging the disagreement between your description of the writing process and the official credits.
 * I have searched for an RS that discusses this for a long time, but simply cannot find one. However, practically every source you could find about the writing or conception of a South Park episode (including the ones I use in this section of the article, like this one and the DVD commentaries) clearly show that the episodes are conceived and written by both Parker and Stone. It's basically the same deal as the Coen brothers, where for many of their films only Joel got director credit and Ethan got writer credit, even though both were involved with both. They basically don't care about what the credits say. All that being said though, in lieu of an RS, I added this bit so that it doesn't go completely unaddressed. I don't feel this needs an RS since (much like the WP:TVPLOT section) the season/episodes themselves serve as a primary source and the accuracy can be verified by watching the episode in question. Let me know if you think this is a sufficient way to deal with this. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have addressed the problem.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * [Writing:] "Viewers able to find and identify the alien in the episode..."

Find and identify? As in these were famous aliens who viewers were required to identify, like E.T., Chewbacca and the like? If that, or something similar, is the case, you need to describe the game in a bit more detail. If not, obviously, you can just cut "and identify".—DCGeist (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * hehe Good points. Removed "and identify". —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have addressed the problem.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The three problems I identified having been addressed, I look forward to supporting this article's elevation to FA status in a few days, provided no new problems are introduced and no old problems are reintroduced. In the interim, you can rest assured, if new problems erupt or old problems erupt again in the article, if I am capable of addressing them—on behalf of this fine example of Wikipedia's work—I most certainly will.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there are a few users who are completely and absolutely against the use of the dvd cover image and have voted Oppose for that reason. This is turning out to be the same as the previous FAC and it is really sad that this article is being failed for such a ridiculous reason as a single image. Silver  seren C 21:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With regard to your last sentence, I couldn't possibly agree more. :D If you choose not to support due to my position on the image, I understand completely. But if you wouldn't mind striking your comments above when you feel they are specifically addressed, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, per my previous support, and the article has improved since then. The contested image is no longer in the article, which makes moot most of the oppose statements. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Except for the people that opposed because the image isn't in the article anymore. This whole thing is so stupid. >_> Silver  seren C 19:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FA articles are not required to have specific images to meet FA requirements. Any statements that oppose on that basis are also moot. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP:FA Criteria mandate images "where appropriate". I can't think of a situation where an image would be more appropriate than cover art used to culturally identify a work. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cover art for a set of DVDs? Interesting, but hardly necessary. As has already been explained to you both here and in the previous FAC, "WP:WIAFA has specifically rejected the argument that articles require images". Morever, the work in question here is the season of television show, not a specific set of DVDs used to sell them, or the covers used for that set of DVDs. And DVD season covers are hardly iconic, as opposed to, say, those of many 1960s-80s record albums: we're not talking about Abbey Road or Horses here. Your unique views on this subject are obviously strongly felt, but, I'm sorry to say hardly enough to support taking seriously an oppose on that basis. On the contrary, it's completely inappropriate to oppose an entire FA article on a television show season based on your desire to see the non-notable cover of a specific set of DVDs that they were sold under. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your viewpoint is interesting, but claiming the cover art of a television season is not as notable as the cover art of record albums is quite subjective and doesn't seem to be supported by any official policies I've seen. And on the matter of opposition not being taken seriously, I think we're straying from the cause of this discussion: that an editor has made a claim, debunked by official policy, that cover art in an article that critically discusses the subject does not constitute fair use. Dismissing my objection over the article's promotion sans image tacitly accepts this flawed argument and jeopardizes other articles. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's rather odd that you would state that "claiming the cover art of a television season is not as notable as the cover art of record albums is quite subjective and doesn't seem to be supported by any official policies I've seen". Your entire argument here is based on a claim that "doesn't seem to be supported by any official policies I've seen", that DVD cover art is required in order to meet FA requirements for an article on TV show season. And the claim that this particular DVD cover is notable or important in the same way as iconic album covers like Abbey Road or Horses is, quite frankly, just silly; here, for example, is a multi-page study of the Abbey Road album cover, and there are dozens of books that discuss the Robert Mapplethorpe image of Patti Smith on the Horses album cover; "The picture of Smith in an androgynous outfit is widely regarded as the peak of Mapplethorpe's early career". Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) And on a personal level, I want to say I resent your assumption that I'm basing my opposition on a desire to see that particular image used in that particular article. I have not made a single edit to the article or participated in the related Wikiprojects. I have no emotional attachment to the article. My interest is purely in the implications this FAC has on articles with similar non-free content. Xeworlebi listed a slew of featured DVD season articles that contain box cover art and could conceivably be taken to FAR to remove them based on the outcome of this discussion. That is what I find "inappropriate". --Gyrobo (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't implied anything of the sort. On the contrary, it's quite obvious you care nothing whatsoever about this article; otherwise you wouldn't be derailing its FAC with an irrelevant fight with Fasach Nua regarding image copyright. Rather than thumbing your nose at all the hard work that has gone into this article, over some irrelevant political battle you wish to fight about images, please work it out on the relevant policy pages, and strike out your opposition to this specific FA, about which you clearly don't care at all. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And as Masem continues to point out (see below), DVD box art is currently acceptable under the current policy. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue here was never whether or not DVD box art is "acceptable", but rather whether or not it is required to meet FA status. And it's clearly not, neither by the FA requirements nor by consensus. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, I've explained that NFCI#1 is current consensus though certainly that consensus can be challenged - at WT:NFC, not at an FA candidate; this is the wrong venue to take that stand. Change is possible, but please work it at the right places. --M ASEM  (t) 03:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's not relevant here, is it? The questions isn't whether or not the image is permitted, but rather whether or not it is required for FA status. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem I'm seeing. Every other FA requirement is moving the status of an article above and beyond what the minimum requirements are for WP - that is, we're looking for outstanding prose, broad use of appropriate sources, all T's crossed, all i's dotted, etc.  Images are the exception because they start from the reverse side of the equation; as opposed to making sure it reflects our best work, image review at FAC is more commonly to exclude media content. Now, I'm all fine and dandy that FAC should evaluate the rationales for non-free images used as much as possible to assure that NFCC is met (particular NFCC#8, etc.) But we also have NFCI#1, which predates and has been used side-by-side with the NFCC to allow for cover images.  I can argue with those that don't want the image here that it doesn't belong per NFCC#8, but it has been a consistent factor that cover images are acceptable per NFCI#1. Within the next few days, I wil likely start an RFC at WT:NFC to review this situation, but this article's promotion should not suffer because of it.  Passing this article with the image is consistent with past FAC for TV seasons, and with NFCI#1. The RFC will show out two results, either validating the NFCI#1, or we will remove or strength NFCI#1's requirement for commentary on the cover image, meaning that every other FA article dealing with a book, album, TV show, movie, TV season, etc. where a cover image is used, will need to be reviewed.  That's a daunting task but one that would be approprate if the NFCI#1 case was strengthened. But that would also come back and affect this article too, removing the cover image most likely. Either way we end up with consistency with concensus on NFC.  By not having the image because some don't recognize NFCI#1's allowance, we create an inconsistency that should not be in the FAC process. --M ASEM  (t) 21:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Masem, is it fair to penalize the authors of this FA because of a fight about image copyright between Fasach Nua and Gyrobo and DCGeist? It's obvious to any rational individual that an article on a TV show season does not meet or fail FA requirements based solely on whether or not an image of the DVD cover is included. Yet, for reasons I cannot fathom, these individuals are claiming just that. Solve your image and FA questions elsewhere; FAC votes (and I use that term advisedly) that an article passes/fails candidacy based solely on this criteria are irrelevant to this FAC and should be ignored. Jayjg (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The requirement for images for FAC rests solely on NFCC appropriateness - compared to all other FAC which start at the various guidelines and MOS and expect more. It is not fair to try to override NFC consensus at a single FAC nominee; again, this leads to a small niche community trying to dictate actions for the rest of the work, the problem that started the date delinking issues. --M ASEM  (t) 06:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Masem is quite right. It appears we've seen an attempt in this FAC and the last to alter or simply override the current community understanding of a policy whose proper venue for consideration and reconsideration is elsewhere.


 * Despite your odd claim, Jayjg, Gyrobo hardly holds "unique views on this subject". Gyrobo's view reflects the consensus view. Far from unique, that perspective is common and, at present, determinative.


 * If this image, whose inclusion is well within our policy and best practices and necessary for the article to be representative of our best work, is excluded due to an argument that defies our existing policy—the case at the moment—I will certainly oppose on that basis.—DCGeist (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether or not the image is permissible, but rather whether or not it is required in order to meet FA standards. And it is the latter view, apparently held by you and Gyrobo, that is clearly not in line with consensus nor actual FA requirements. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The current consensus appears to be that it is in line with the current consensus and that the requirements do require it. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeating the claim that it's consensus won't make it true; only you and DCGeist appear to support this view. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Masem did a fairly good job of explaining the state of the current consensus, and several other editors in this FAC and the last have expressed support for the image using the same reasoning. Could you please point to an official policy that supports your viewpoint? --Gyrobo (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You keep discussing an irrelevant issue; that many editors support having the image in the article in not in question. I have no objection to it myself. However, the issue is not whether or not the image is permissible, or even desirable, but rather whether or not DVD cover art is required in an article about a TV show season in order to meet FA standards. And it is the latter view, apparently held by you and DCGeist alone, that is clearly not in line with consensus nor actual FA requirements. And since it is you who is opposing the FAC on this ground, it is you who must "point to an official policy that supports your viewpoint". So far you have not. Jayjg (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FA Criteria, "[Featured articles have] images and other media where appropriate, with ... acceptable copyright status". If the licensing of the image is appropriate, and its use in the article is appropriate, the FA criteria mandate its inclusion. --Gyrobo (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've mentioned that before, but it really didn't make much sense, since
 * a) it's rather obvious that not every image that could be used in an FA must be used in an FA - otherwise some FAs might be absurdly forced to have dozens of pictures in them, and
 * b) this article already has lots of images where appropriate.
 * Nope, you still haven't pointed to any policy that states DVD cover art in particular is required in an article about a TV show season in order to meet FA standards. That's actually just yours (and DCGeist's) personal opinion, and irrelevant to whether or not this article meets FA standards, since it's not about this FAC at all, but rather some disruptive sideshow about fair use policy. Jayjg (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose then it would then be better to take the oppose from Fasach Nua than the two from you guys. This is so silly. :/ Silver  seren C 04:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you believe should be done, Silver seren?—DCGeist (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been arguing since the beginning that the image should be included in the article. However, I do not believe that the presence or not of the image should change my decision of support for this wonderfully well-written and formulated article. Silver  seren C 06:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I respect that position, and I effectively share your opinion of the article's literary quality. I do not share your position, however, and seen within the broader context of the FAC process, I do not regard this matter as silly at all. Regrettable, yes. Silly, no. And I don't believe you should either.


 * I believe that anyone who takes seriously (a) our FA criterion 3, (b) the three pillars of our NFC policy, and (c) our mission in this process to identify that which "exemplifies our very best work" should resist this attempt—given the venue, it is fair to call it a backdoor attempt—to subvert our policy, guideline, and norms concerning the use of basic identifying media. Gyrobo observed the "bad precedent the exclusion of this image would create." That's a very important concern, and I'd ask you to keep it in mind. Let's strive to continue to make the precedents we set here good ones.—DCGeist (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The image should be in there. Therefore Support if the image is there; Oppose if it isn't.  Jheald (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My only iron in the fire in this is the inclusion of the cover art of the DVD set. I concur with his argument, specifically that this is the season of the television show article, not an article about the DVD set. The title card used for the season would be far more relevant and identifying to readers of the article than the cover art of the DVD set. Further, reality is DVD sales are plummeting, as people are getting their media delivered over networks now. So, I oppose inclusion of the cover art as unnecessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Title cards can vary by episode, or remain consistent throughout the run of a show. Box art is meant to be representative of the season as a standalone work, and networks like Netflix use DVD box art to allow customers to visually identify seasons. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I implied that my statement was anything other than a personal opinion, I apologize. Nobody brought up the point you did, and I was attempting to show specifically where I stand on it. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment from delegate I really hope a particular comment by Jayjg resonates, and I'll repeat it lest it get lost in the shuffle: "FAC votes (and I use that term advisedly) that an article passes/fails candidacy based solely on this criteria are irrelevant to this FAC and should be ignored." I encourage those of you who have commented to make sure you are commenting broadly on all the FA criteria. If you are only commenting on the image, your comment will carry little if any weight. Opposition over the exclusion of the image, or support contingent on the inclusion of the image, is not actionable. If delegates cannot determine consensus based on other substantive comments, the nomination will have to be archived (again). -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  06:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I happen to be a proactive FAC reviewer. When I see prose problems, I tend to copyedit. When I discover misquoted quotations, I tend to correct them. I trust that, having identified an image problem that I can readily rectify, no one will have a problem with the fact that I am now rectifying it.—DCGeist (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that support over inclusion/exclusion of the image is inactionable; a FAC is the ideal venue to discuss whether an image is so necessary for readers' understanding of the subject matter that it qualifies as one of the media items the FA criteria say should be included. If the current consensus is that the original non-free rationale was valid, then I think that it should be added back to the article, that it's necessary for readers' understanding of the subject matter for the reasons described in the rationale: it would be the only image in the article to show the characters of the show, and it's an image used to publicly identify that particular season. The action I would like taken is for the delegates to weigh in on whether they believe DVD box art is vital to a television season article's completeness. If this action is taken, I will withdraw my objection. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my opposition. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment. I'm leaning toward support, but I have a few prose and style concerns, as follows :


 * Strings like 3.41 million households and 12 a.m. would be better held together with no-break codes to keep the elements from separating awkwardly on line-break. The article includes many such strings. WP:NBSP is the relevant guideline.
 * I will try to address this one later today, if not tomorrow. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I have addressed this now, although I was not familiar with no-break codes before this, so please let me know if I did it wrong or missed any. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a better place for the Wikinews link in the "Development" section is in "External links". I see the Wikinews link as parallel to the Wikiquotes link in this article and to the Commons link in many other articles. After readers finish the article, they can watch streaming episodes if they like.
 * Moved it. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the WP:MOSQUOTE guidelines is that fancy quotes are generally to be avoided in Wikipedia articles. Pull quotes are a rare exception, but the box in the "Critics" section is not a pull quote; it's an add-on quote in the same typeface as the main text. I recommend quote box.
 * I think I addressed your concern, but if not let me know... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In plot summary 10, link redneck?
 * Added. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fix the date formatting in citations 97 and 99.
 * Fixed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Cultural references
 * "The Ring" featured parodies of not only the pop rock boy band Jonas Brothers... - Too many strung-out modifiers. Maybe "Jonas Brothers, a pop-rock boy band,"? Also, link boy band and Jonas Brothers?
 * Reworded and added wikilink to boy band. I didn't add the link to the Jonas Bros. because they are already linked in the plot summary for "The Ring", but if you think it should be in both let me know and I'll add it. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "to disguise its primary profit motive" - Delete "primary" because it implies other (secondary, tertiary) profit motives.
 * Done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Music
 * ""Gay Fish" satirizes the rapper's tendency to rely on Auto-Tune–style pitch audio processing." - Unclear. Would this be better as "the rapper's tendency to rely on audio processing to correct his mistakes in pitch"?
 * Replaced. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Several fake Jonas Brothers songs were written for "The Ring", many of whose lyrics refer to the band members' physically attractiveness." - Awkward. A song is a "which", not a "who", and "physically" is a typo, I think. How about "Several fake Jonas Brothers songs, with lyrics about the band members' physical attractiveness, were written for 'The Ring' "?
 * Done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In the episode "Whale Wars", Cartman plays the video game Rock Band and performs a rendition of the Lady Gaga song "Poker Face", which was praised by critics. - Does this mean that "Poker Face" was praised or that the rendition was praised? If the latter, move "praised by critics" to appear just after "rendition"; i.e., "rendition, praised by critics, of the... ".
 * It is the latter. Very good suggestion. Fixed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In "W.T.F.", during the audition the boys set up to seek participants for their professional wrestling league, one of those trying out sings a Broadway-style number about why he wants to be a wrestler that parodies the song "Nothing" from A Chorus Line. - Same problem in this sentence. Does the wrestler parody the song or does the number? If the latter, move the modifying phrase snug against the noun modified.
 * Let me know if I did this right. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Critics


 * "Fishsticks" particularly attracted media attention, with some critics declaring it one of the best episodes of the season." - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction. Maybe, "Fishsticks" particularly attracted media attention, and some critics declared it one of the best episodes of the season."
 * Ok. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "A fictionalized version of rapper Kanye West fails to understand the joke, but can not admit that he doesn't get it because he considers himself a genius, a reference to West's perceived ego problem." - A bit too complex. Maybe, "A fictionalized version of rapper Kanye West fails to understand the joke. He cannot admit that he doesn't does not get it because, in reference to a perceived ego problem on the part of the real West, he considers himself a genius."
 * Ok. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Although some LGBT activists... " - Link LGBT?
 * Added. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Celebrity reactions
 * "The blog post drew a significant amount of media attention... " - Tighten to "The blog post drew a significant amount of media attention... ". Finetooth (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for your, as always, excellent review! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Thanks for fixing these so quickly. I agree with you about the Jonas Brothers link. I performed slight further tweaks in two places (W.T.F. audition and Kanye West), and I'm striking everything except the nbsps. Finetooth (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I've done the nbsps now. Thanks again! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All of my concerns have been satisfied. I believe the article meets all of the criteria. Finetooth (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Query:


 * [Writing:] "The running gag of killing protagonist Kenny McCormick continued, though he was killed only three times during the season: in the episode 'The Ring', when he contracted syphilis after engaging in oral sex; in 'W.T.F.', when he was shot by a rocket launcher during a professional wrestling match; and in 'Pee'."

Odd to describe Kenny's manner of death in two instances, but not the third. Please add a description of his death in "Pee".—DCGeist (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. I don't believe Kenny's death happens onscreen in that episode, it's just implied that he died, since he doesn't show up again after the flooding of the park. Silver  seren C 19:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, while the death occurs off-screen, his corpse floats by the other boys shortly after the typhoon, showing that he drowned and prompting them to shout "Oh my God, they killed Kenny!", so it's more than implied. But Silverseren's added description is accurate. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My take: --Gyrobo (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The season was helmed" in the lead, I don't think it's a very common use of the word. Is there a link or better phrase that can be used here?
 * How about "headed"? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "They were broadcast at 10 p.m. on Wednesdays." in the lead, doesn't describe the time zone or country. Is it really needed? This is touched on again in Development, you should really add time zones and localities.
 * Dropped it from the lead, added country and time zone to Development section. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...the band gives them purity rings as a pledge to abstinence." would that read better as for abstinence? It seems kind of awkward.
 * I changed it to "to practice abstinence". —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...Mickey Mouse is using the rings scheme..." the concept of rings as a scheme isn't mentioned. Perhaps "using the rings as a scheme"?
 * Done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...to propitiate the economy's anger." Link to Propitiation seems in order.
 * Done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The men are disgusted and fail to recognize a double standard when they still find farts funny." Reads kind of awkwardly. Would be phrased better as "The disgusted men, still finding fart jokes funny, fail to recognize the double standard." or something to that effect.
 * Used your wording. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "and begin a vendetta of slaughtering cows and chickens instead." Vendettas are against something; I think it would read better as "...and begin a vendetta against cows and chickens, slaughtering them instead."
 * Replaced the wording. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...to review the proposal and convince them..." should be convinces, as the thing doing the convincing is the town, singular.
 * Done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...where Cartman is distraught to discover that many minority people are in attendance." This is phrased slightly awkwardly. Is there a way to add a different euphemism and link to Minority group?
 * I reworded. Not sure I agree that the wikilink is necessary in this particularly instance, but I added it anyway. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The season was distributed by Comedy Central, where the series has aired since its inception in 1997." Does the phrase "the series" need to be mentioned twice like this? How about "...where it has aired since its inception in 1997"?
 * The word "season" isn't mentioned twice; one is season and one is series. I was trying to show that the show had been around on that network not only from the start of the season, but from the very beginning of the show. I could change it to "where South Park has aired since its inception", but the title was mentioned in the sentence before that, so I thought it would be a bit redundant. I could change it to "where it has aired since its inception" as you suggest, but I feel that would make people think the season had aired there since its inception, not the series. What do you think? —  Hun  ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The new seasons thirteen, fourteen and fifteen were each to consist of fourteen episodes." Should be a comma, "The new seasons, thirteen..."
 * Added. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "South Park Digital Studios" is not italicized, yet other proper names are. It could be rephrased as "...animation studio, South Park Digital Studios, which would..."
 * The reason I didn't italicize SPDS is because that was the name of their animation digital studio, not the website SPS, which I did italicize. I thought this was proper, but if you think SPDS should be italicized as well, I'm not opposed. Let me know or feel free to go ahead and do it yourself. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "was a particularly challenging episode to make -- they were up all night Tuesday" uses two hyphens instead of an unspaced mdash (—), which the article uses. And it doesn't mention what day "Tuesday" refers to. And you may want to change those mdashs to spaced ndashes (–), because one of the quotes uses spaced ndashes.
 * I reworded this sentence a bit to clarify the dates, let me know if you think it works. Also, I think another editor swapped out the dashes during their copy edit, because they were fixed before I got to them. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Some critics have said this technique and short turnaround process helps South Park stay fresh and address..." If you're talking about both the technique and process, and it's plural, it should be "help South Park stay fresh". If it's singular, it should be "addresses".
 * This sentence was reworked a bit in a previous copy edit, and I tweaked it just a bit more. Let me know if it works. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "characters Katie and Katherine, star of a television show" should be stars plural.
 * Oops. :) Fixed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The characters served as a female equivalent of long-time characters Terrance and Phillip" would read better as "...as female equivalents to long-time characters..."
 * Oops again. :) Fixed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...found the scene disturbing and inappropriate in the light of recent school shootings..." are there any articles this would be appropriate to link to?
 * I don't really feel comfortable wikilinking to any particular school shootings because none are identified by name/place by the source. It refers only generally to shootings, as this article does. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...a reference to the real-life 2009 scandal." I don't think you need "real-life" here, as all the events lampooned actually happened. Perhaps a description of the scandal ("...a reference to a similar 2009 scandal")?
 * Reworded. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...who have no problem with farting, strongly object to..." should be objecting.
 * Done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...and frivolously spending alien-provided "space cash" on water parks." Was this a parody of a specific incident that should be linked?
 * I don't believe so; or if it was, the sources don't mention it. They just refer to the episode portraying Feilpe Calderon as "as a leader who wastes funds and irritates the international community."
 * Thanks very much for this review. It's really good to see people starting to review the entire scope of the article! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All my points have been addressed, and those that haven't been changed are minor personal preferences (or misreading on my part) that I don't feel strongly about. I find no fault with the prose of this article, and support its promotion. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. The above copyedits have resolved any minor problems with the article, and it clearly meets the FA criteria as far as I can see. —Noisalt (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I suppose I never said support, did I? Well, I am now. Like I said before, especially with the improvements from the suggestions above, this article definitely fulfills the requirements for FA. It is wonderfully written, the references are perfectly formulated, and it is sectioned in an appropriate and flowing manner for readers to follow easily. Silver  seren C 18:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: Just gave it one more ce pass. All problems resolved. Looks in great shape.—DCGeist (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: The infobox image should have an alt text. Why is "Ramsley Isler, IGN" as source in the quote box bolded? Also, as done in other quote templates, salign is on the right and has an mdash before the source. Other than that, I've added several categories yesterday that were missing, mostly regarding the episode list contained in the article. This article is well written, in-dept and meets WP:FACR.  X  eworlebi (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added alt text and fixed the quote box. Please let me know if either needs more work. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I went ahead and fixed the HTML entity myself. I'll reiterate my support, according to Laser brains comment, I believe this article is well written, in-dept and meets all criteria. This article is definitely one of the finer season articles on wikipedia and most definitely deserves FA status.  X  eworlebi (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why thirteenth, fourteenth, etc are spelled out, instead of 13th, 14th, etc per WP:MOSNUM, but not a big deal. The better part of this FAC was spent debating an image, in an issue that extends beyond FAC. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the promotion of this FAC is not the be-all, end-all answer to whatever image issues are occurring beyond FAC, and use or not in this article isn't a determining factor. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


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