Trapped in the Closet (South Park) is a
former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check
the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South Park on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South ParkWikipedia:WikiProject South ParkTemplate:WikiProject South ParkSouth Park articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
As part of the
ongoing drive to reevaluate old FAs according to modern norms, I took at look at this article, and have some comments on issues I think stand in the way of it being a featured-quality article:
The article seems very unbalanced in terms of what it covers. I get that the controversy around scientology was a big part of the discussion around the episode, but the "controversy" section both seems like a bad place to cover a lot of it (it's weird Hayes' departure gets mentioned after the discussion in production about why they chose to do the episode and its direct relevance) and also feels like it really could use a pass for summary style (some of the information is plain trivia, like "hey they referenced this in a cover illustration years after the fact" at the end. Why does a joke at Tom Cruise's sexuality merit a four-sentence quote from Entertainment Weekly with no followup? etc.) From an organization perspective, a lot of the stuff is better put in development, release, etc, instead of a "controversy" section.
The reception section seems pretty spare. There's very little actual critical reception from publications at the time, the analysis section doesn't actually say much at present, and the legacy section is mostly just a rebranded "in popular culture" trivia section. From a quick search of academic databases and Google Books, there's newer scholarship that should be reflected in the article (e.g., ; the article at present basically doesn't cover anything in the last decade-plus.
@
David Fuchs: I see that the article has not had significant edits since you posted this review above. Do you still agree with the assessment above, and if so would you be willing to nominate this to
WP:FAR?
Z1720 (
talk)
23:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Trapped in the Closet (South Park) is a
former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check
the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South Park on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South ParkWikipedia:WikiProject South ParkTemplate:WikiProject South ParkSouth Park articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
As part of the
ongoing drive to reevaluate old FAs according to modern norms, I took at look at this article, and have some comments on issues I think stand in the way of it being a featured-quality article:
The article seems very unbalanced in terms of what it covers. I get that the controversy around scientology was a big part of the discussion around the episode, but the "controversy" section both seems like a bad place to cover a lot of it (it's weird Hayes' departure gets mentioned after the discussion in production about why they chose to do the episode and its direct relevance) and also feels like it really could use a pass for summary style (some of the information is plain trivia, like "hey they referenced this in a cover illustration years after the fact" at the end. Why does a joke at Tom Cruise's sexuality merit a four-sentence quote from Entertainment Weekly with no followup? etc.) From an organization perspective, a lot of the stuff is better put in development, release, etc, instead of a "controversy" section.
The reception section seems pretty spare. There's very little actual critical reception from publications at the time, the analysis section doesn't actually say much at present, and the legacy section is mostly just a rebranded "in popular culture" trivia section. From a quick search of academic databases and Google Books, there's newer scholarship that should be reflected in the article (e.g., ; the article at present basically doesn't cover anything in the last decade-plus.
@
David Fuchs: I see that the article has not had significant edits since you posted this review above. Do you still agree with the assessment above, and if so would you be willing to nominate this to
WP:FAR?
Z1720 (
talk)
23:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)reply