Talk:Blind Ambition (Family Guy)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move. Yes, this is probably the best Wikipedia article of those titled "Blind Ambition", but it hasn't been demonstrated that this is the most notable of all the items listed at Blind Ambition, i.e. the primary use. Duja ► 09:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The disambiguation page has only two real links, and this is the only one that leads to a real article, the other one leads to an episode list. Until those redlinks are actually created, I see no point of calling this article "Blind Ambition (Family Guy)". In my opinion brackets should only be used if there is another stuff on Wikipedia that's notable enough for an article. TheBlazikenMaster 19:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) The title "Blind Ambition" is most notably a book written by John Dean who was White House Counsel for Richard Nixon. Dean's testimony before a Senate committee disclosed the plumbers, the secret tapes, etc. Huge. The book's title is surely the antecedent to cultural follow-ons, whether called "Blind Ambition", "Blonde Ambition", etc. The 1979 film was based on this book, for example. Yes, it's odd that no one has yet written a WP article. When someone does, it will seem even odder that a TV episode has taken priority over the vastly more historically important book. Hult041956 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry, I hate to do this but red links are an extremely important part of article writing, if someone see's a red link, they are probably more likely to create the article if they have knowledge of the subject/or can access it. However, I feel they're less likely to create if they do not see the red-link, hence forth I would say that the disambiguation page is best, as it is.  Qst  19:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

in reply to

 * 1. Since you know so much about the book, why not make an article about it? TheBlazikenMaster 17:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2. Yeah, so please do make them. That's all what's needed. New articles. TheBlazikenMaster 19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I'm wrong, BlazikenMaster, but your attitude of "if you know so much about the book, why not make an article about it" stikes me as unnecessarily rude, people do have the right to there own thoughts. Cheers, Qst  20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rude? All I did was giving a suggestion. I never said anything was wrong with anyone's thoughts. It was just a suggestion, nothing else. TheBlazikenMaster 20:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It just came over as a comment as if you didn't like this persons thoughts. Qst  20:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I have nothing against anyone's thought. Since the person said "notable" I was advicing to make an article. TheBlazikenMaster 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm truly sorry. I obviously interpreted it wrongly. Cheers, Qst  12:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How else should I have worded it? TheBlazikenMaster 17:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe like, Do you know about the article? If so, why not make an article about it, if it's notable enough, for example. Qst  21:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Per above. TheBlazikenMaster 16:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This is the only one with the title which leads to the artual article, rather than a list. Martin B 09:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Martin. Will (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) I'm surprised there are not more things with this name. I would hesitate to rename the Family Guy episode because I think it is not very notable, but in the absence of a competing topic I also wouldn't oppose such a rename. Doesn't seem worth the effort either way. / edg ☺ ★ 17:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA review
Before renominating, I suggest adding some reviews of the episode from magazines or websites, and Family Guy always needs to be in italics. The lead also needs some work: it should just say Peter goes blind, and "Guest starring" is a poor way to start a sentence. You need to link those two actors. Alientraveller 16:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is very poor. Please see my talk page. Mentioning anything other than who it guests stars, would just be blabbering about nothing. It is common practice for articles to contain a brief plot synopsis at the top, and then a proper and detailed plot section to follow below, hence forth, I'm going to re nominate it, this review appears incorrect. If it fails for a second time with your reasons, I will apologise, but this review does not comply with the GA standards. Qst  17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the plot summary needs to brief in the lead. You might as well eliminate the current plot section and replace it with the short and succinct description. Then that would utterly defeat the purpose of WP:LEAD. Something like "The episode follows Peter going blind" would be perfectly acceptable. Alientraveller 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, I quote from that page: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article. A simple lead section of Peter goes blind could not be suitable enough to reflect the information of the full article. Qst  17:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell me, does any FA/GA article summarise the whole story in a single paragraph, and not describe the episode's production or reception? There is still nothing on the episode's reception. Alientraveller 17:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a small comment, I think the plot section has far too much detail about one-off jokes and minor details. It could easily be trimmed down. -- Scorpion0422 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Scorpion00442: Thanks, that is the first useful comment made here, by all parties :). Alientraveller: Yes, several articles have a full, yet brief plot synopsis at the top, followed by a detailed section below, see Homer's Enemy, would you like more links? Qst  17:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Some do, but most don't. Maybe 1 of the 50 Simpsons episode G/FAs have those. -- Scorpion0422 17:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Users on IRC say the review was poor, and frankly, it was. Qst  18:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but I agree that the article isn't of GA quality. Perhaps you should try improving the article, rather than blasting the reviewer. Take a look at A Streetcar Named Marge, which is a better article than Homer's Enemy. And, a couple more comments, some of the refs are improperly used, they should go after punctuation, not before. As well, the production section could use some more stuff, and the note about the twins/Atkins joke being controversial could use a citation and some reiteration. How was it controversial? -- Scorpion0422 18:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As said, we should make good use of the resources, the Production is as much as is available from the DVD and on the internet, we cannot put anymore in, there is no more to put in. The joke was controversial because it was clearly insulting to the twins, who were shown on a diet, the DVD commenatary states that this gag was thought long and hard about before usage, for causing offence. Qst  18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then that should be noted in the production section. -- Scorpion0422 18:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just another small comment. Content-wise, there aren't a lot of sources to draw from, so I've no issues about this article's brevity. However, some of the writing could use another pass. Primarily, get rid of some of those extraneous commas, especially in the lead. And secondly, use shorter sentences. An example of one which is ripe for three or four breaks: "Upon arriving to pick them up, Lois goes to the restroom, as she is placing toilet paper over the seat, she repeatedly hears a quiet giggity sound, upon looking up, she sees Glen Quagmire starring down on her and suspending himself from the ceiling, this causes large scale controversy across Quahog, after being arrested, Quagmire is released from police custody with the help of fellow neighbor, Joe Swanson." - Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional comments, in case your interested:
 * TV.com is not a reliable source. ✅
 * What's the point in having the whole "Preceded/Followed by" template, when the infobox includes the entire season? ✅
 * There's a clarify tag in the cult refs section. ✅
 * Probably does need some reviews, or at least some form of a reception section. No valid reception information available.
 * A couple of style errors: There isn't a full stop before ref 4, there's a full stop before add after refs 6 and 8 - there only needs to be one before it. Ref 3 should go after the comma. Also is ref 6 supposed to have an "m" before "Blind Ambition"? ✅
 * Is there a point in linking to the official Family Guy site? Does it have a specific page for this episode? ✅
 * I'd remove the red link from the plot, and the guest stars probably need a source. ✅ Link Fixed

Aside from this, its pretty good, keep it up, and good luck with the renomination. Gran2 12:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course we're interested :) I understand that information about the reception of the episode would be beneficial, however upon searcing through the DVD, DVD commentary, and the internet &mdash; I cannot find any reception which would be notable enough for the article, unfortunately - that is one of the sections I was hoping to have, but never mind :). The guest stars can be easily referenced, it is on IMDb, tv.com and other more reliable sources, so that should be reasonably easy. Cheers for the advice. Qst  14:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention, I did actually remove the preceded by box, however it was readded. I personally did not think it was necessary, and I have left it since. Qst  14:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The cultural references section keeps this article from being good, in my opinion. It looks like someone just took a bulleted list and collapsed it into paragraphs. The result isn't cohesive and is very awkward to read. It's also a prime example of why 'no trivia sections' is a bad policy. How could it be improved without going back to a list format? I don't have an answer, but it definitely needs work. 71.98.94.127 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I organised it a lot when revamping the article. Anyway, I'm kinda tired now - so I'll do it tomorrow. Qst  21:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Stewie in the tree
From the last section: ''When Stewie crashes into a tree, he see's Snap, Crackle and Pop, fictional characters create by Kellogs' Rice Krispies for promotional purposes, plotting against their enemies. Crack and Pop are later shown sitting in The Drunken Clam, talking about how there plan failed, and imply that Snap was killed during the battle with the elfs.[9]'' I think if someone would review the episode, the characters Stewie sees plotting in the tree are supposed to be parodies of the Keebler Elves, who are making plans to attack the Krispies Kids. Crackle and Pop are later seen in the bar, dealing with the shock of the sneak attack by the elves and lamenting the death of Snap. While TV.com has been mentioned previously in this Talk article as being an unreliable source, the TV.com page on this episode and the relevant Family Guy Wikia article agree on this. Twfarlan 20:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 6, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Article is well written. Passes here.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Sourced to (11) sources. However, please go back and format all of the citations using WP:CIT.  It'll just add a little something to the piece, and it's not that hard to do.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Good coverage, overall, however please expand the Lead/Intro. You should have at least one sentence or so that summarizes the Reception, and Cultural references subsections.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Article is written with neutral wording, passes here.
 * 5. Article stability? Some anon edits, just keep an eye on this to make sure it is constructive. Also, some relatively heated discussion on the talk page - However, this seems to be resolved at the moment, and it seems like there is some more collaboration going on, which is great.
 * 6. Images?: One image, fair use, rationale provided on the image page. Passes here.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please message my talk page when the above minor points have been addressed, and this article should not have a problem passing at a WP:GA. Overall, great work!  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
 * OK, cheers Kurt. I'll take a look at this in a couple of hours. Cheers, Qst  10:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

✅ Except for the references, I'll leave a note on your talk page about that. Thanks, Qst  13:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the issues have not been addressed, yet. This GA is still on hold, but I won't fail it at this point.  "Negative" is spelled incorrectly in the lead.  The lead could still be expanded a bit more, like I said, at least one or two sentences summarizing both the Reception, and Cultural references subsections.  Please do go back and format the citations with WP:CIT.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
 * I went ahead and fixed some of the Lead/Intro's minor typos and syntax issues myself. I will now pass this as GA, but please do keep some of my above suggestions in mind when improving the article further.  Thanks.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
 * It's the first Family Guy GA :). Cheers, Qst  17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And not the last. Peter Griffin needs to be improved. I would bother doing it myself, but I don't know what Google results I can trust. TheBlazikenMaster 17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll add it to my list (I will do it, sometime), but I'm going to be busy over these next few months with trying to get the season 5 episodes to GA status, but I will get round to it. Qst  17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried editing the Neil Goldman link to the correct Neil Goldman (writer) page, but don't know how to do properly. Please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.14.84 (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, M ASEM 19:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Chicken
Why wasn't the fight with Ernie, the giant chicken in the plot summary. I feel that's an important part of the episode.Toolazy21 (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the production section, but it is not in the plot, as it would make it to in-detail and excessive, IMO. Qst (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Prose review
Hi, as discussed on your talk page, I will be copyediting and commenting on the prose used in the article. What I will do is copyedit the article myself and highlight differnt issues that come up here so problems and solutions can be paired up. As mentioned elsewhere, sourcing and formatting are absolutely fine. Lead Plot
 * "“Blind Ambition” is the third episode of season four of Family Guy. The episode broadcast on May 15, 2005." - These opening sentences are a case where two related sentences are not connected up, resulting in a stiled experience for a reader, a little like reading a list in prose form. The solution is simple: "“Blind Ambition” is the third episode of season four of Family Guy, first broadcast on Fox on May 15, 2005." This has lengthened the sentence, connected the subjects and added a little bit more information to make a more reader-friendly sentence.
 * "Peter swallows an excessive number of nickels, becoming blind and unknowingly saving Horace from a fire at The Drunken Clam. Meanwhile, Quagmire is forced to refrain from his usual sexual behavior or risk being removed from the neighborhood." - The second "section" of the lead suffers from almost the opposite problem as that effecting the lead: The thoughts are not so closely related and therefore need further seperation. This can be achieved by adding a small amount of detail that more clearly summarises the cause and effect within the plot. It is also important to emphasise that these events take place in a fictional setting. Finally it is important to remember that some people who come to this article may never have heard of Family Guy and will need to be gently introduced, so characters and behaviour that may be obvious to fans of the show to be explained in more simple terms. i.e. "In the episode, Peter swallows an excessive number of nickels, causing him to become blind. He later recovers his sight and becomes a hero after unwittingly saving Horace the bartender from a fire at his bar, The Drunken Clam. Meanwhile, Quagmire is forced to refrain from perverse sexual behavior or risk being driven out of the neighborhood following his arrest for spying in a ladies lavatory."
 * The extension of the plot in the lead allows the lead to be broken into two paragraphs which, while not strictly necessary does enable the clear seperation of themes and production information given in the lead from, the plot. This also coincides with the preferred number of paragraphs in the lead under the MOS.
 * Second paragraph - as before, this was about providing a little more context to identify the interesting points about the episode in a summary fashion without becoming too complicated for a reader with no background knowledge. I won't go through it as it is on similar principles to the first paragraph.
 * The same problems as above here and so I won't go over them here again in future, but to run over it in this section, "At the bowling alley, Mort Goldman bowls a 300 game and becomes an overnight celebrity. When Lois arrives to pick Peter and his friends up, she goes to the toilet, but is interrupted by Quagmire, who is spying on her from the ceiling." - The first and second sentence seem to have little in common, because the subject of the first sentence is actually related to the subject of the second paragraph, not the first. I will try reversing them to see if it looks better. Secondly, the information in the second paragraph could be presented in a clearer way, for example: "At the bowling alley, Lois discovers Quagmire spying on her from the ceiling of the ladies bathroom."
 * I have rewritten the plot, cutting out a small amount of material but mainly just rephrasing in a more succinct and simple way. The principle behind this, is that if the relevant information can be portrayed in fewer words while still making sense, then it should be. Thus redundancy is reduced and explanation shortened.

Cultural references
 * Although I have tidied the prose in this section as discussed above, the important thing here is organisation. Other than the bit about guest stars that I pulled from the lead, there is nothing new here, its just been reorganised. Now the cultural references are in two paragraphs that seperate movies and TV references, giving each a theme with which to build a more coherent paragraph.

(By the way, if I change any American spellings to British ones it is not deliberate and I apologise, please change them back).--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, I use American English, so let me worry about the British spellings. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Reception section sorely lacking
The section is supported by very few reviews, and in reality, the section is the most important, as it shows us that it was noticed by others, that it got critical reception, and that it was worth mentioning. Without a stronger reception section, it could be merged, and of course demoted from GA status. Please fix; I'm no inclusionist, but episodes should also hold themselves up to a certain standard. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Blind Ambition (Family Guy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221143021/http://www.tv.com:80/family-guy/blind-ambition/episode/365970/cast.html to http://www.tv.com/family-guy/blind-ambition/episode/365970/cast.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blind Ambition (Family Guy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081225005704/http://uk.dvd.ign.com/articles/672/672389p1.html to http://uk.dvd.ign.com/articles/672/672389p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)