Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 1)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:48, 1 October 2010.

Family Guy (season 1)

 * Nominator(s): Pedro J.  the rookie 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i belive it meets the criteria, had a PR before nomination. Pedro J. the rookie 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment --Dan Dassow (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a very cursory review of the FLC candidate. I will try to review it further tomorrow.
 * In "Brian: Portrait of a Dog"
 * Link to dog show goes to an disamguous page. I suspect you intend Conformation show.
 * Is it Brian or Brain? You have it spelled both ways for this episode.
 * Both Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 04:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few Checklink problems: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Family_Guy_(season_1).
 * Done. -- Pedro J. the rookie 18:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I looks like you caught most of these. One remains. Ref 43 Family Guy — Volume 1: DVD Review (info) [ign.com] http://dvd.ign.com/articles/390/390195p1.html redirects to http://uk.dvd.ign.com/articles/390/390195p1.html --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 13:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference 19: Is corrupt - "Template:Cite web".
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 04:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This article needs to be copy edited for run on sentences and excessive use of passive sentences. For instance:
 * "His supportive wife Lois pleads for him not to drink; although Peter claims to comply with her request, he deliberately disobeys her at the party due to encouragement from Quagmire and their friend Cleveland Brown, and acquires a hangover." is an example of a run-on sentence. This sentence should be split into two sentences.
 * "Family Guy was developed out of MacFarlane's thesis film The Life of Larry," is passive.
 * "MacFarlane developed Family Guy out of his thesis film The Life of Larry," uses active voice.
 * Information stated about one episode, does not need to be repeated for following episodes. For instance there is no need to repeat the information about why Peter lost his job in the description of the second episode.
 * "Peter applies for welfare in order to support his family's well-being after losing his job as Happy-Go-Lucky Toy Factory safety inspector via a hangover which he obtained at a stag party hosted by Quagmire ."
 * I belive the 3 of them are done. Pedro J.  the rookie 21:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: What I had commented on before are examples that we should avoid: run-on sentences, excessive use of passive voice and repeating information. I believe these are the some of the writing issues that Rambo's Revenge is referencing. I will not have a time to do a copy edit on the article until this weekend. I intended to make you aware of problems in the interim. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose from
 * Part I:


 * Part II: The above was getting clunky and hard to follow so I'll start again.

Rambo's Revenge (talk)  16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why a prod code needs more than one ref (three is ridiculus). Just choose the best for each.
 * Done. -- Pedro J. the rookie 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If something isn't easy to find, removing it is not the right plan. It then fails 3a. Comprehesiveness.
 * You have to nderstand that the episode is barley recognized, not even the season guide shows it as an episode it aired, and hen the first offical episode was the same plot bu a bit extended. -- Pedro J. the rookie 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pilot episopde removed as it is not considerd a season episode. Pedro J.  the rookie 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Float the picture in Development to the right. For me (quite a wide screen) it hangs down into the Production section and indents the new heading and text which looks odd.
 * Done. -- Pedro J. the rookie 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why have you removed the DVD table? If you look in my comments (now capped) I even found a cite for the Region 4 release. I suggest you use it.
 * Reviewer Ophios commented that it should be changed and put on prose, at the end it is the same thing. -- Pedro J. the rookie 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I requested that he replace the table with prose per upcoming MOS guidelines. Ω  pho  is  23:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One way or another I think you should use the Region 4 release date I gave you. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  20:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 50 doesn't give any ratings. According to the headers it % change. As for a rank of 33, that needs context. That is probably for prime time TV shows, you'd need to find out. If it was programs Super Bowl et al would be up there.
 * Done. 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No ref for 40.2 rating in Super Bowl.
 * Removed as that information is not relavent to the artical. -- Pedro J. the rookie 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "crops No.&nsbp;1 in "Stewie"
 * Done. -- Pedro J. the rookie 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned there are no reviews from the site. People may look back on a succesful series in a more favourable light. I think it is important to be completely WP:NPOV and have something from the time. There will have been something in print: Variety, USA Today or even local papers. Often archives on newspaper websites don't go back that far but LexisNexis or ProQuest go much further back and should be able to help.
 * This will take its time but i will keep looking. -- Pedro J. the rookie 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Summaries need a good univolved run from a copyeditor (examples from first ep):
 * "airline pilot friend Glenn Quagmire to" -> ''airline pilot friend, Glenn Quagmire, to
 * "Although Peter claims to comply with her request, he deliberately disobeys her at the party due to encouragement from Quagmire and their friend Cleveland Brown, and acquires a hangover." missing comma. Believe it should be he deliberately disobeys her at the party' due to.
 * "his subsequent firing. After being fired for negligence,"
 * while working as a Happy-Go-Lucky Toy Factory safety inspector
 * Will try to find a CE. -- Pedro J. the rookie 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * CE finished. Pedro J.  the rookie 23:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Much happier now due to copyedit (thanks Dank). In future, though, please try to get this done before FLC. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  16:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One more: The FUR for the non-free image is not good enough. It is a boilerplate FUR for a film. If you read through it, there are many parts that don't make sense. These are supposed to be individual. Also, could you do the same for the image on the existing season FL. I know this is strictly out of the remit of this FLC, but featured work is often mimmicked and sometimes taken as gospel in how seasons should be structured so I think in that respect we have a responsibility here to set the correct example. Rambo's Revenge (talk)</b>  21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think i fixed the first season image, i will do the FL later today. -- Pedro J. the rookie 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Once you've addressed these two other concerns and Rambo's concerns above, I'll be willing to support. Nomader (Talk) 01:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As soon as Rambos's responds to my comments and we can disscuss things i will finish his concerns. Pedro J.  the rookie 03:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And following the comments of Rambo, I'll be staying neutral until his suggestions are solved. DragonZero  (talk · contribs) 02:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment there are redirects that need to be fixed like Cartoon Network (United States) which redirects to Cartoon Network, Larry shorts redirects to The Life of Larry and Larry & Steve and What a Cartoon! which redirects to The Cartoon Cartoon Show. JJ98 (Talk) 10:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 13:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Per upcoming MOS guidelines, DVD information should be presented in prose and not in tables.
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the episode number column represented by "†"? It would make more sense for it to be "#" or "No."
 * Changed. Pedro J.  the rookie 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The production section says, "Season one also saw the introduction of several recurring characters, including Peter's employer Jonathan Weed, and police chief Joe Swanson." It is the first season, so of course characters will be introduced. Listing new characters is irrelevant to the production section unless production-related info is then provided.
 * Done Pedro J.  the rookie 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes The TV Critic a reliable source?
 * In his "ABOUT" section you can see that at least major news networks in the UK consult with him. Pedro J.  the rookie 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The final paragraph of the reception section is a mess and needs to be fixed. It reads, "The first season of Family Guy aired during the 1998–99 United States television season; the season premiere "Death Has a Shadow" aired after Super Bowl XXXIII on January 31, 1999 and achieved a total of 22.01 million viewers, attributed mostly to the large audience received by the Super Bowl, which it itself received a rating of 40.2 by Nielsen ratings, while the season finale "Brian: Portrait of a Dog" earned a total of 12.8 million viewers; the season finished with a ranking of 33 in the Nielsen ratings."
 * I had to eliminate some information so i really not sure if i corrected it or just made it worst can you tell me. -- Pedro J. the rookie 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That information has been changed alot so i do npt now if you still have a problem with it. Pedro J.  the rookie 15:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Development section is redundant, in my opinion. It is already present on the main page and the pilot episode's article. This list should cover elements more relevant to the season, not the series.
 * I would not think so but i will remove it if you insist. Pedro J.  the rookie 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I say this because the development section covers the shaping of the series itself. This list is supposed to cover the makings of the season. Ω  pho  is  21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Pedro J. the rookie 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no source for the release of the Region 4 DVD. I would suggest citing this. Although it doesn't have a release date, it at least verifies that it was released. Ω  pho  is  06:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The refs need to be cleaned up some. There is inconsistency in italicization, and some are just lower-case titles jumbled together. Ω  pho  is  21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean that some titles like the TV critic is ictalized. Pedro J.  the rookie 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. And IGN is italicized sometimes, and sometimes isn't italicized. The italicization of websites is not consistent, either. You italicized TV by the Numbers and IGN sometimes, but didn't do so for EzyDVD or Yahoo! TV. Ω  pho  is  18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cleaned them up. Pedro J.  the rookie 15:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Still is inconsistent. Ω  pho  is  03:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes this a reliable source? Ω  pho  is  21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is owned by Yahoo inc, GeoCities. -- Pedro J. the rookie 23:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a problem with Entertainment Weekly. It's the fact that you are trusting it is from. It is GeoCites userpage and "knifeman" (i.e. Joe Bloggs) is saying it is from EW. There is nothing stopping me uploading a similar page but if I wanted to be malicious I could have changed the numbers around. I'm not saying that is what has happened, I'm saying is it reliable? <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a good point, it really is and i have no idea to really prove that its reliable, as it was stated it is hard to find the ratings of theas episods so i am really not sure, do any of you have opinions about it. -- Pedro J. the rookie 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IN that point i would remove the source, so you agree with me. Pedro J.  the rookie 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would probably be best to remove it then. Ω  pho  is  03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The reception section says, "In 2009, IGN named Stewie's plan to freeze broccoli crops number 1 in their "Stewie's Top 10 Most Diobolical Evil Plans"." What episode is this referring to? Ω  pho  is  23:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done -- Pedro J. the rookie 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Episodes are supposed to be in quotes, not italics. Ω  pho  is  03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of the lead reads, "The season received positive praise from critics, who called it "groundbreaking".[1] Critic Aaron Beierle felt that the season was "extremely witty and darkly hilarious", and was "unfortunately" canceled.[2] Season one contains some of the series' most acclaimed episodes, including "I Never Met the Dead Man" and "Brian: Portrait of a Dog".[1][3] The Volume One DVD box set was released in Region 2 on November 12, 2001 and in Region 1 on April 15, 2003. All seven of the season's episodes are included in the volume. The second season's twenty-one episodes were also included in the volume. The series has since been released in syndication."
 * Pretty much only one source is used for the critical response. More opinions should be given, although it should be more general and not "So and so felt this way..."
 * I am looking for a quote of that. Pedro J.  the rookie 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * what refrence would that be. -- Pedro J. the rookie 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For one, you said that critics called the season "groundbreaking", but only cited one source for that. And the next sentence is about one specific critic (Aaron Beierle)'s opinion. The last sentence reads, "Season one contains some of the series' most acclaimed episodes, including..." This, too, just cites one source. You can't say that something is critically acclaimed based on one person's opinion. The lead's section on reception should be a general summary. Look through the reviews and find statements that are common to multiple critics. Ω  pho  is  18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "The second season's twenty-one episodes were also included in the volume." should not be mentioned in the lead.
 * Done -- Pedro J. the rookie 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your source that the season is now in syndication? Ω  pho  is  23:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * General statements in the lead such as "The season received praise from critics." do not need to be cited, as it is later cited in the reception section. You still have not provided any other references to support the claim that the two episodes in the lead are the "most acclaimed episodes". The reception part of the lead needs to be expanded. Ω  pho  is  01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the comments by DVD Talk for a review of the first two season, and are aimed at the series itself. I don't feel this is relevant to the season 1 article. Ω  pho  is  01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that better. Pedro J.  the rookie 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—a dead external link to http://www.campustimes.org/mike-henry-of-family-guy-talks-voices-gags-and-instinct-1.743902; no dab links. Ucucha 00:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions. I'm copyediting per a request at WP:GOCE.
 * "however, both he and Brian are arrested by security guards": I'm not following, did he drop the money as planned? When was he arrested? - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What's a weather device? Do you mean a device to control the weather? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "cardboard cutout near his head": do you mean in front of his face? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "the power outage": I thought it was a cable outage. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "prompting Peter to run off with William Shatner": I'm guessing this is not a sexual liaison; can you rephrase? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "highly dangerous "toys",": the quote marks around "toys" mean that they weren't really toys; okay, what were they? - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They were toys but there where also knifes, poision, etc. Pedro J.  the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Peter attempts to make it up to her": what is she upset about, and what does she ask him to do? - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It says why he is upset, and it was his own idea. Pedro J.  the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Peter accidentally loses the reservation for Stewie's first birthday, and must create a new party.": I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Peter retrieves Meg before the rest of the cult members drink it.": I don't understand from this whether some, all or none of the cult members drank the punch. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "so that his friends can come to visit": can come or will come? What prohibits them from coming if he doesn't have a bar in the basement? - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done
 * "until she is put to sing.": ? - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Peter becomes jealous so he invites their wives to drag them out": ? - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that whole section needs to be rewritten; I don't know what you're saying. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "As part of the planning process, the Family Guy writing staff collaborated on which ideas and characters to use for each episode.": Is there anything here that the reader couldn't guess for themselves?
 * "Diobolical": was the misspelling intentional? - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "however, during the court case, after Brian fails to please the court": I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done my best with most of the episode summaries but I don't know whether they will make sense to most readers; I'd appreciate it if another copyeditor could give them a whack. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help did some fixes based on your commentes. -- Pedro J. the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did enough work on this one that I'm not objective about the language, and so I'm not comfortable supporting or opposing. I believe it still needs some work, and it would be helpful if someone else could compare Pedro's last edit with my work.  Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose because of prose ... but we're close. Pedro had solid responses to my comments about the first part of the article, and I went back and did Episodes 4-6, but Pedro reverted all my changes to Episode 7 and following, re-inserting a bunch of mistakes, and didn't respond to my comments on those bits. There's really not much left to do, but I can't do it since I'm getting reverted; could someone look at Episode 7 and following, please? - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Did not meam to revert you, done. Pedro J.  the rookie 17:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done with Episode 7; nothing has changed below that, yet. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pedro J.  the rookie 04:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't done, but I finished it up. Striking my oppose; OTOH, since I was only looking at some of the prose issues, I can't support. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * The infobox image gives it's FUR as "To illustrate a DVD release of the full season discussed, and identify the season in the article." That fails the non free criteria by a country mile. I even know where you copied it from—I've seen the exact wording before—and that article got through FAC with a deficient image review. Either rebuilding the FUR from the ground up or removal of the image is necessary.


 * Is that better. Pedro J.  the rookie 00:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Better, though I'm not really certain any of these are justified. Before I nitpick the prose, can you answer my other question? Courcelles 05:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The other image is fine.
 * Is the pilot part of this season or not? Some note somewhere regarding it's relationship with the rest of the episodes would be nice.
 * It is not really a season one episode since it has of my knolge only aired once and has been included on o9ther DVDs. Pedro J.  the rookie 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got lots more comments, but I'm so tired I'm barely seeing straight. More tomorrow. Courcelles 04:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Have all previous reviewers been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Question why does Family Guy (season 5) appear to be at a much higher standard? There is little description for the DVD release, and very little in the reception and production sections especially for the debuting season of the show. Nergaal (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I agree with you about the production and reception sections, I requested that the DVD section be reduced. Presenting every single minute detail is not necessary, and appears better when in prose. As well, upcoming MOS guidelines will require prose instead of a table. Ω  pho  is  21:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.