Talk:420 (Family Guy)/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer:  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 17:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. There are a few problems with prose and only one major problem (discussed in general comments section)


 * Specific comments
 * "the day before 4/20" Should be written in prose, April 20, maybe with brackets notifying the 420 reference.
 * "centers on anthropomorphic dog Brian's" seems clunky, needs rewording, take out anthropomorphic dog.
 * "from baby Stewie" Do we really need these clarifying terms this late into the episode articles? Just Stewie would do.
 * "he recently adopted and named James and prefers to spend more time with him than with them." All needs rewording for grammar.
 * "kills him with a straight razor." Kills "it" to save confusion.
 * "hide his body" ... hide its body.
 * "use the urine of Stewie" Stewie's urine, surely?
 * In production "episode for the season" episode of the season
 * "staff writers have planned on writing out the character." Needs a tense change, had planned on writing out the character.
 * The first reference's link needs changing so that it lands on the correct page displaying 420.
 * The Yahoo! source looks a bit dodgy, should be replaced with something more reliable.


 * General comments
 * The cultural references section reads like a list of miscellaneous events! These should be integrated into the production section (under its own section), with a more officious style of writing, and the original section should be removed.


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): -->  (per changes) (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Quite a few prose issues and the main reason the MoS failed is because of the Cultural references section which just reads like a bunch of trivia slammed into a section, that bit needs a lot of work if this article is to be passed, everything else is just small-time corrections need to be made, then this article is go.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): (citations to reliable sources):  (OR):
 * No real issues, apart from the one source change needed for Yahoo! ref 3.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Perfic'.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Comments above
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Your concerns have been addressed by Railer-Man. Gage (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Your concerns have been addressed by Railer-Man. Gage (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your concerns have been addressed by Railer-Man. Gage (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fabulous work! And it's passed!  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 06:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed Good Article status
Removed. The article does not meet criterion for Good article status. The plot section has no references. Per good article criterion, good articles need to be "Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

An easy fail, a section that's entirely unreferenced. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The plot section doesn't need references. They never have, also you can't just remove an article's GA status, you have to put it through good article reassessment. Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)