Talk:The Griffin Family History/GA1

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

Under review. Otto4711 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is generally all right but the article needs to be copy edited, focusing especially on punctuation (many possessives are missing apostrophes (e.g. "the episodes depiction" should be "the episode's depiction) and subject-verb tense agreement (e.g. "the couple discover" should be "the couple discovers"). A few awkward sentences. Perhaps change "Due to the room not having a telephone or an inside door handle, Peter begins to tell stories about the history of the Griffin family." to something like "The room has no telephone or inside door handle so the family is trapped. Peter begins to tell stories about the history of the Griffin family to pass the time." and "Meg is attempting to be raped by the burglars downstairs" to "Meg is attempting to seduce the burglars" or "Meg is trying to induce the burglars to rape her". Suggest reducing overlinking of common terms like "plantation" and "rape" per MOS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I am concerned that the bulk of the references are to primary sources like the DVD commentary. Are there no secondary or tertiary sources that discuss any aspect of production? I am also concerned about the reliability of TV Squad and IGN as sources. This is my largest concern with the article.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm going to place the article on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. This really needs additional sources that are unrelated to the episode before I can pass it.
 * As my concerns have not been addressed, I am failing the article. Otto4711 (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm going to place the article on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. This really needs additional sources that are unrelated to the episode before I can pass it.
 * As my concerns have not been addressed, I am failing the article. Otto4711 (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to number 2, I think DVD commentaries are considered secondary sources as they're not actually a part of the episode, they are just packaged along with the episode on the DVD. They are, however, not produced by a 3rd party that's independent of the article topic. Bill (talk 20:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that. I'm looking through WP:RS and I'm not seeing that mentioned. Would you happen to know what that's based on? Otto4711 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In WP:PSTS, a secondary source is described as one step removed from the event. It doesn't say DVD commentaries specifically, but as they are not actually part of the episode then I would say they are a good secondary source. Similar to a "making of" video on a DVD or something like that, except they're available during the viewing of the episode. There's quite a few GA and FA Simpsons articles that use the DVD commentaries as secondary sources for production information. Homer Simpson for example. Bill (talk 22:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I've certainly used commentary tracks myself to fill in production details. My concern is that the article doesn't cite much of anything in the way of independent reliable sources to show that the episode is even notable, much less sourced to the level of a GA. I'm having difficulty with the notion of listing this article without at least some sourcing that's completely separate from the episode and/or its creative team. Otto4711 (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there. Of the 5 independent sources, the tv.com one is user-editable content so it fails RS, the BBC source is just a schedule listing and the IGN link only has a passing mention of the episode as it is a DVD set review. Bill (talk 23:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've requested a full second opinion on the article and also opened a discussion on DVD commentaries as sources here. Otto4711 (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)