Talk:Blue Harvest/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    I don't have a great eye for prose, but this article seems find in that regard.
    B. MoS compliance:
    Consistently puts information in parenthesis, when information, such as the identities of the characters, should be stated in the sentence rather than tacked on.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Lacks references for a part of the first section.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Same as above.
    C. No original research:
    Seems fine.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Reception section is sorely lacking; in the span of five minutes, I found two sources that establish the success of the DVDs, so I doubt that it cannot be expanded. And I don't buy the argument that all Family Guy articles have about this much reception or less; it's one of the only FG episode articles that has been released on DVD or is more than 30 minutes long.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Lead image does not provide Alternate text.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold for a week. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been little activity and the week deadline has came and went, I am failing this article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  1. I'm not the reviewing type, but I've found many glaring flaws. First off, the entire plot summary is unsourced. What can you do to assure me that this isn't just a fan write-up and entirely made up?
Plot dose not need to be sourced as it is an episode.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this stated? At the very least, one must cite the episode, or citing a quote from the episode. People shouldn't have to watch the episode to be able to verify the truth of the Plot section. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the nominator taking care of this article, but I would like to note that Pedro is correct. WP:TVMOS#Plot_section specifically states that "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question." For example, if you would look at every The Simpsons FA or GA (i.e., Homer at Bat, A Streetcar Named Marge, Bart Gets an F, etc.) you'll see plot summaries are left un-sourced because it is unnecessary to do so. The information in it is simply supported by the episode itself and it would be redundant to cite it. Just stepping in on this as I've noticed GA reviewers are commenting on this in their reviews for ep. articles when the policy states it's okay. :) The Flash {talk} 02:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The lead is very messy. It should be combined into one or two paragraphs and not have a single line paragraph.
Done--Pedro J. the rookie 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. References should not be included in the lead, due to the fact that the lead is to summarize things later said in the article. Logically, as long as the lead doesn't cover content that isn't in the rest of the article, the references should be reused anyway.
It should'nt but there are no rules about one or two refrences--Pedro J. the rookie 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fact that references shouldn't be in the lead does indeed stand as a rule not to include them in the lead. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The second fair use image could use stronger rationale [since it could be reused for many images since any image could "illustrate the accompanying text"] or replacing with a screenshot of the show.
Took of--Pedro J. the rookie 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There has to be more reception than that? Is there nothing covering the sales of the DVD? And I'm sure there are more reviewers who have covered this song.
DO not think so this is the normal recep for episodes.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this was also an hour-long episode and a standalone DVD release, and is significantly more famous than other episodes. There's bound to be something. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Character list is unnecessary; it's an in-universe list of characters to say "okay fans, this character plays this character" that is of no relevance to people who are not informed to the subject.
DONe--Pedro J. the rookie 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The references to minor jokes could be trimmed down a ton. One of the first things I read after the first paragraph is the joke that you see in the beginning of the Star Wars spoof. I would suggest making a separate section to cover its references to popular culture, but also not mentioning every single little reference. The jokes are gone into excessive detail, explaining exactly how Luke is feeling at the moment when John Williams died.
  2. Another problem is that parenthesis are used far too often. It can certainly be avoided with the compromise of saying "On the ship are the droids C-3PO and R2-D2, who are portrayed by Family Guy characters Quagmire and Cleveland respectively." That's the best way to actually do it, as the way it's done now assumes the readers know what a Quagmire is. Parenthesis are often used to explain the joke that happens too, making a reasonable plot sentence go into a joke.
Not needed as like on a movie or special you need to now whos who and that works.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in a film summary, one would list the actor who portrays the character, not the character. Listing the character as if they were an actor is very in-universe and is only important to Family Guy fans who want to learn who is who. This is acceptable, but keep it in the prose. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The "only actor whose career wasn't destroyed by this movie" line is really unnecessary, and is confusing to those who don't get the joke.
  2. The argument about Robot Chicken, like almost every joke, goes into unnecessary detail.
Done--Pedro J. the rookie 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not done; the paragraph has not been fixed at all, and I don't believe you've actually edited the paragraph. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Who is Helen Reddy? I honestly have no idea who she is, and one mustn't assume that people will.
There is no need to tell who she is as she is a guest.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but then why do we explain who every other guest star is besides her? I still have no idea who she is, and it presupposes that the reader understands this person and why she's so important to give mention to. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Looking back at the lead, it does in fact have content that should be in the actual body of the article, such as the meaning of the title.
Done--Pedro J. the rookie 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not done; there is still content that is only mentioned in the lead. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Plenty of unsourced content strewn throughout the DVD section.
DOne--Pedro J. the rookie 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not done; there are still many unsourced statements in the section. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reviewing it, but if I was, I'd certainly quick fail it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently, two users are insisting on content being outright removed from the article because the information is unsourced, even though some of it is clearly sourceable [ie, one passage removed said an "interview with Seth McFarlane by IGN]. So at that point, I couldn't pass it by knowing that the article is incomplete. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_Harvest/GA1&oldid=1124416877"