Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Family Guy/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:09, 13 December 2009 [1].

Family Guy[edit]

Nominator(s): Pedro J. the rookie 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because...i think it is ready for an FA status it has been through two Peer Reviews after it got to GA and i have expandedit and copyeitit so i think it's up for it. Pedro J. the rookie 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Music" and "Road to" sections need sourcing that they are "hallmarks". Ωphois 18:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted that earlier, hallmark AFAIK it means some aspect that reapets itself in a way along the show i think the musical numbers and the road to episodes count .--Pedro J. the rookie 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only five episodes. Needs sourcing. Ωphois 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explain that way i may agree--Pedro J. the rookie 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only five episodes out of the entire series. Not really notable, unless noted by a third-party source. Ωphois 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a refrence that calls it a Road to episodes of the IGN.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably work. Can you list it here? Ωphois 23:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a review of one of the episdodes he called it one of the road to series.[ http://tv.ign.com/articles/996/996824p1.html]
done--Pedro J. the rookie 01:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cultural influences" section doesn't appear to have any cultural influences. It just talks about how Family Guy influenced spin-off series of MacFarlane (which exist for any series' spin-off). Same with "Music and idioms". It's basically a list of parodies. Ωphois 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It dose, it influenced on American Dad, the cleveland show, the winner, and it has influenced music and idoms.--Pedro J. the rookie 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which are all related to Family Guy. No influences outside of MacFarlane's shows are listed. Fans looking up the meaning of an invented word does not infuence popular culture. The music is just songs parodied by the show, not the other way around. Ωphois 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may agree with the songs but the word is an influecen and even if it is MacFarlanes job he used them to influence them.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what cultural influence did the word have? Ωphois 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well i took it from an example of the simpsons.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a vast difference between that word and D'oh!. Ωphois 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah alright i fish freaking sweet would become the douh of Fg--Pedro J. the rookie 00:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Characters and Voice Cast sections should probably be combined. Ωphois 19:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That those not seem right i see many other FAs and have there characters section.--Pedro J. the rookie 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reception section is heavily biased in favor of the show. It only gives one negative critical review of the series, while an entire section is dedicated to praising it. Ωphois 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going to have to disagree, as we had hard time finding good reception, there is plenty of negetive recepction.--Pedro J. the rookie 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is plenty of negative reception, then why didn't you add it? Right now it only lists one negative critical review. The rest is from other TV shows and cartoonists. Ωphois 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has criticisam, bad reviews what more can it have--Pedro J. the rookie 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has one negative critical review. Ωphois 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
will see what i can find ohpios--Pedro J. the rookie 23:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done--Pedro J. the rookie 01:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Television critics have commented that the first season episodes where some of the best of the series, includeing "Brian: Portrait of a Dog" and "I Never Met the Dead Man"." - Spelling/grammar needs to be fixed. Also, it cites "television critics", but those two episodes are only listed by one critic.
"The IGN, a multimedia news and reviews website that focuses heavily on video games has called the show a hilarious experience brand of humor." - Needs copy-editing.
The page has also wrote lists of the show naming there best moments on different categories. - Not really relevant, IMO. It's a list of the show's best moments, not moments in comedy, so there is no comparison. Ωphois 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Sydney Morning Herald named Family Guy the "Show of the Week" on April 21, 2009, calling it a "pop culture-heavy masterpiece"." - That is related to a specific episode, not the series in general. Ωphois 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things do not need to be source to be a hallmark it reapets itself maany times so it counts as a hallmark, and that is influceing--Pedro J. the rookie 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. That is an observation by you, not a RS. Ωphois 19:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

show me examples that do have sources of that--Pedro J. the rookie 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are making the claim that it's a hallmark. It's up to you to find sources. Ωphois 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Characters and voice cast are completely difrent things should not be toghether--Pedro J. the rookie 19:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TV articles generally have them combined. Ωphois 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whats a hallmar for lets say the simpsons: the halloween episodes and humor, for FG the music, the cutaways and the Road to episodes, plus you work alot on Supernatural right thats difrent from anaimated sitcoms as we have difrent stlyes --Pedro J. the rookie 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a hallmark, then it will be noted as such in third-party sources. Ωphois 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you do not need to source things that are obious--Pedro J. the rookie 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not something "obvious". It's original research.
Another note... have all the reviewers from the previous review been notified that it is back up for nomination? Ωphois 19:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

working on that elimanated recep from IGN--Pedro J. the rookie 20:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, oppose. In addition to my previous comments, the prose needs work. I would suggest a copy-edit. Ωphois 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm afraid the article is not ready yet. Take the following sentence for example: "The show has also had showrunners as Mark Hentemann and Steve Callaghan," First of all, there should be a period at the end, not a comma. Secondly, I think there's a missing "such" in the sentence. Also, the dates in the article's references are formatted incorrectly. Some use "yyyy-mm-dd", while others use "Month day, year". Theleftorium 20:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comeing from you that means its bad--Pedro J. the rookie 20:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bad. Just needs some more work, that's all. :) Theleftorium 20:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ya think it needs to be dis-nominated--Pedro J. the rookie 20:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If i mau ask what do you think about ohpios requests takeing in mind your an animated editor--Pedro J. the rookie 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the requests are you referring to? Theleftorium 20:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of them--Pedro J. the rookie 20:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They make sense to me. Theleftorium 20:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
realy all of them--Pedro J. the rookie 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
soon someone will copyeit the artical left--Pedro J. the rookie 23:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you want to continue with the nomination, you need to alert the reviewers of the previous nomination. Ωphois 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of that--Pedro J. the rookie 12:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't. From what I can see, you just notified people associated with the Family Guy project and left out people who had previously opposed. Ωphois 14:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the previous FAC i notified most of them and looks like you did the ones that where left--Pedro J. the rookie 15:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Could you please check spelling as you type your replies here. Not that we're reviewing the nominator, but seeing so many typos here I can not trust the article.
Will do.--Pedro J. the rookie 12:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please click on the "external links" and "disambig links" in the toolbox on the top right of this page and fix the problems you'll find there, such as dead links and unclear redirects. Materialscientist (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
External(removed the dead links, disambig(done)--Pedro J. the rookie 12:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reference 117 is dead. So I think you should replace it for find an archive of it. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Pedro J. the rookie 02:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, if a link is dead, you don't have to automatically delete it. Check first if an archived version is available at the Wayback Machine. Ωphois 03:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • Unusually large number of spelling errors in the article (for a FAC). I fixed all that I saw, but this doesn't bode well... • Ling.Nut 06:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Depth and extent of 2c errors make the citations unverifiable in particular not naming the sources correctly and timing data, plus the citation of copyvios. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of timing data when citing videos. For example, "His main inspiration for Chris' voice came from envisioning how "Buffalo Bill" would sound if he were speaking through a public address system at a McDonald's.[39]" => "^ Green, Seth. (September 27, 2005). Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story: Audio Commentary. [DVD].". We could really do with timing data for that.
Copyvios have been cited
Cite correctly: "Plenty of Changes at Fox, UPN, Fox Tinkers With its Prime-Time Lineup on 6 Nights, UPN on 3". newsbank. Retrieved October 3, 2009. is from Akron Beacon Journal (OH) - May 17, 2002 - B7
Cite correctly: " "ARTS & TV in Brief; `Family Guy,' `SportsNight' may move to new networks". pqasb. Retrieved October 3, 2009." is Boston Herald - Boston, Mass. Date: Apr 25, 2000 Start Page: 052
Cite correctly: ""News Corp. Wins Suit Dismissal Over ‘Family Guy’ Song (Update1)". bloomberg." is by "By David Glovin and Erik Larson" and bloomberg takes a Capital B.
And I take it you read those three articles when conducting the research?
IGN is sometimes Italic sometimes Roman.
Inappropriate bold in: "The Cleveland–Loretta Quagmire". Family Guy. Fox. June 12, 2005. No. 3, season 20.
Additionally MOS on caps "TIME", titles incorrect "allmovie" for "AllMovie"
I'm not going to outline more of the errors, basic work like seeing if a weblink is infact a newspaper article has not been conducted, obvious errors in formatting abound: the citations do not allow for verification of the research, thus the research is unverified. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Family_Guy/archive2&oldid=1136097910"