Wikipedia:Peer review/Family Guy/archive4

Family Guy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would want to see this artical move to fa but i lost ideas on how to improve it Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I don't have the time to do a full review and suck at them anyway so I'll give a few points.

It looks good, much improved. After the PR I recommend you get a couple of people from the league of copy-editors to check the grammar etc.
"In 2009, a spin-off series The Cleveland Show, created by Seth MacFarlane, Mike Henry, and Rich Appel premiered on Fox. The series is currently in its eighth season, which premiered on September 27, 2009." Change "The series" to "Family Guy" to avoid confusion that The Cleveland Show is in its eighth season. Done
"In 2009, it was nominated for an Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series. This was a significant accomplishment considering that the last animated program to be nominated was The Flintstones in 1961 and that The Simpsons has never been nominated in this category." This is kinda self-serving but I do think it could be briefly mentioned that The Simpsons was submitted for the Comedy Emmy in 1993 and '94 but the Academy dinosaurs were hesistant to nominate a cartoon and subsequantly the staff gave up. If included, there are sources for this on season 4 page.
Hallmarks section seems short, cut it be merged it a larger section? I don't know.
Some of the references need to be fixed. Ref 67 needs Family Guy to be unlinked for example. There needs to be some co-ordination in linking: Tv Guide is linked, Manchester Evening News isn't.
Ref 73 and 74 are not formatted properly.
Reference title should not be in capital letters, even if they actual title is. Done

Overall it seems a fairly balanced article. Gran² 14:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from Chzz ►

Sort out the references; the formatting and information is inconsistent - e.g. date formats, some are "November 23, 2008" some are "2009-10-03". And ref. 83 in particular, "^ "TV: Breaking Down the List". 'Entertainment Weekly' (#999/1000): 56. June 27 & July 4, 2008." - why is EW in bold? Ref.1 has some odd bold going on too, and lacks date/author etc. Refs 73, 74 have no details at all. References are vital for progressing towards FA - they all need attention, to use a consistent style and to add as much detail as possible.

frequent "cutaway gags" - why the quotes? Done

The link to Cartoon Wars is a disambiguation

Re. video references, what actual broadcast are you referencing here? You may be giving the yahoo link as a 'convenience link', but what, exactly, is this reliable source? ie who broadcast it, when, etc...

It needs lots of copyedit. For example, Family Guy has also been challenged with negative criticism, including three notable lawsuits and low reviews... - 'notable' according to whom, and what is a 'low review'? An unfavourable review? I won't pick holes through all of it, but I suggest getting as much copyediting done as possible - it certainly needs attention before approaching FA. I always recommend having a go through User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. The Family Guy writing crew plot episode ideas together and decide which characters to use. - I had to read that about 4 times before I could work out what it meant; it could be "The (Family Guy writing) (crew plot)" ...etc.

*Infobox, picture format says about 2010 - is this really appropriate, as obviously it hasn't happened yet

"~~Hallmarks" is an odd name for that section; perhaps "Recurring themes", or something more descriptive~~
It is more of an sofistacated name for the same thing--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~External links to imdb, yahoo, etc - do these really add any information that could not be included (per WP:EL)?~~
yes, they do --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he replied "Make it a little less [...] annoying...and speed it up, or every episode will last four hours". - is there any reason why the first cedilla is in parentheses?

Check redirects; whilst I am aware of the WP:NOTBROKEN idea, things like "the Seattle Times" instead of "The Seattle Times just seems wrong; similarly Ren and Stimpy instead of The Ren and Stimpy Show, and probably others.

*Mort Goldman, his wife Muriel Goldman and their geeky and annoying son Neil - all 3 of those characters are redirects onwards to the same place, viz. List of characters in Family Guy#The Goldmans. If they are unlikely to get their own articles in the immediate future, then this really is a case of excess links to the same place within a section. Done *Skyline images, alt tags, a) don't make sense - reduces in width as the stories are higher, and the right is comes to a point and b) the second one is not An animated version - it's not a moving image. Done

Also, the above probably don't need a forced image size; thumbnail size (selected by the reader) should be fine. That's true of almost all images.

*"Characters" the latter part of this is unreferenced. (Also, just a mention, there is an odd ")" there; ...Quagmire".^[63]) Loretta Brown... should prob. be ...Quagmire)."^[63] Loretta Brown..." Done

(I know I said that I wouldn't pick on grammar, but...) In a majority of the episodes of Family Guy, the plot will be interrupted by a cutaway segment. -> In ~~the majority of episodes, the plot is interrupted... Done~~

Please note, the above is not a comprehensive review; there's lots that I didn't check out and comment on. I am not saying that "If you fix all these things, it'll be fine as an FA" - they're suggestions, and designed to be examples of the areas that can be improved. I suggest getting lots of copyedit, and working hard on the references, and then getting further feedback via another peer review or something, before going for FA. Hope this helps; I know it's critical, but then...that's what to expect when you ask for a review - don't take anything personally, and I wish you the very best in developing the article. Cheers, Chzz ► 23:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I agree with the comments made above and think this needs a fair amount of work before it is ready for FAC.

The hardest criteria for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. I am not going to point out every place where this needs to be xopy edited, but find someone to give this a thorough cleanup. See WP:WIAFA
~~There are also numerous WP:MOS issues - the creator's full name should be spelled out once in the lead and perhaps once in the artcle body (both first occurrence) then just referred to as MacFarlane.~~
done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provide context for the reader - if someone had never seen the show how would they work out who was who in the lead in The series centers on the Griffins, a dysfunctional family consisting of Peter, Lois, Meg, Chris, Stewie, and their pet dog Brian. (only the dog is identified by role) Try to think of a few words to describe each character so perhaps "overweight, dimwitted father Peter" (taken from his article)
Watch WP:OVERLINKing, again Seth MacFarlane is linked multiple times in the article and only needs to be linked once in the lead, once in the body (first time each place) and in the infobox.
Avoid words like now or currently, as they can become outdated quickly. So Family Guy is currently in its eighth season, which premiered on September 27, 2009. could be something like The eighth season of Family Guy premiered on September 27, 2009.
done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Some WP:WEIGHT issues in the lead - this is an article on Family Guy, so we need to know the creators of The Cleveland Show in the lead?~~
done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. But Rich Appel seems to only be in the lead.
This sentence did not make sense to me - is it from a version before the eighth season began? Family Guy returned to production in 2004, making four more seasons (for a total of seven) and a straight-to-DVD special, Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story.
Try to avoid needless repetition - the series threatened cancellation in season two, actual cancellation in season three and renewal are told in both the history and the Production issues sections. Could these be combined?
Reading this it seemed clear to me that the authors really like the show and do not like the Simpsons as much - while there is nothing wrong with those opinions, they mean that the article needs to be polished for WP:NPOV concerns.
I would also look at WP:IN-U, though that seems not to be a major problem here.
Agree that refs need to be cleaned up - for FAC every single detail of every aspect of the article has to be as good as possible

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]