Wikipedia:Peer review/Family Guy/archive5

Family Guy
This peer review discussion has been closed.
 * Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…I think it has FA potencial

Thanks, Pedro J.  the rookie 22:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks a lot better since the last peer review. I think the language could still be improved and will try and point out as many examples as I can of rough spots. There are some other mostly nit-picky suggestions for improvement beyond language too.
 * LEAD - I think I would put some indication of time in the first paragraph - began airing in 1999, currently in its eighth season, something like that. The first paragraph is a bit short anyway. The set in a fictional version of Rhode Island sentence could probably be added here too.
 * LEAD - awkward sentence - MacFarlane redesigned Larry, the films' protagonist, and renamed him Peter, also redesigning Larry's dog Steve, who developed into Brian. Should use parallel construction (so "also redesigning Larry's dog Steve" doesn't match - should be redesigned. The sentence could also be tighter, perhaps something like MacFarlane redesigned Larry, the films' protagonist, and his dog Steve, and renamed them Peter and Brian.
 * Done-- Pedro J. the rookie 23:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * LEAD - "ratings on" doesn't sound right in However, favorable DVD sales and high ratings on syndicated reruns convinced the network to renew the show in 2004. how about "ratings for"?
 * done-- Pedro J. the rookie 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * LEAD - this could be tightened too: Family Guy has been nominated for eleven Primetime Emmy Awards, of which it won three. The show has also been nominated for eleven Annie Awards, winning three times into something like Family Guy has been nominated for eleven Primetime Emmy Awards and eleven Annie Awards, and has won three of each.
 * done-- Pedro J. the rookie 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * LEAD - I am nopt really sure what a "low review" is. Family Guy has also received negative criticism, including three lawsuits, and low reviews for its similarities to the animated series The Simpsons. Perhaps replace "low reviews for its similarities" with "unfavorable comparisons for its similarities"?
 * done-- Pedro J. the rookie 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * LEAD - there is very little about the show itself in the lead - it seems to me that someone who had not seen it would know more about tie-ins, awards, and criticism, than what to expect watching a typical episode.
 * History section has this sentence  The network also began production of a film based on the series.[12] with a ref from 2004, then nothing more on a film until the film section, where this is not mentioned at all. I think I would either remove this (a 5 year old reference to a film in planning which has never materialized) or perhaps it owuld be better to move it to the film section and change it to something like When the series was renewed in 2004, the network announced its intention to begin production of a film version.[12] Although this has not yet materialized...
 * Done-- Pedro J. the rookie 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the material seems a poor fit in the section - it might need to be moved elsewhere or the section title might need to be revised. For example, what does the nice little story about early episode naming conventions really have to do with "Staff" (the section it is in)?
 * There are a fair number of places that could provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR For example could the years the people were on staff be added to the Staff section's a list of various types of producers? For another example, why not add the year (2004) to Since the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, the writers have been required to tone down the show's crude humor for television broadcasts.[20] Also not really sure what this has to do with the Staff section, though it does mention the writers.
 * Also per WP:PCR or WP:IN-U, I owuld describe who Peter, Stewie and Brian are at the beginning of voice cast, so Seth MacFarlane voices three of the show's main characters: [father] Peter Griffin, [Peter's dog] Brian Griffin, and [Peter's infant son] Stewie Griffin.[25]
 * There is a one sentence paragraph on MacFarlane's other voice roles that should be merged with the preceding one on his main voice roles to improve flow.
 * done-- Pedro J. the rookie 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Needs a ref Other recurring cast members include: Patrick Warburton as Joe Swanson; Adam West playing himself as mayor Adam West; Jennifer Tilly as Bonnie Swanson; John G. Brennan as Mort Goldman; Carlos Alazraqui as Jonathan Weed; Adam Carolla and Norm Macdonald as Death; Lori Alan as Diane Simmons; and Tara Strong as many additional voices, most notably Meg's singing voice. as does most of the last paragraph of Characters
 * Done-- Pedro J. the rookie 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say eponymous in  Adam West playing himself as [the eponymous] mayor Adam West - he is not really playing himself (is the real Adam West a mayor?)
 * done-- Pedro J. the rookie 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Explain that 31 Spooner Street is the fictional address of the Griffins in This is supported by the fact that the real-world "31 Spooner Street" is located in Providence, immediately west of Roger Williams Park.[43]
 * done-- Pedro J. the rookie 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wyach needless repetition - the Adam West the actor voices the character Adam West the mayor bit is in twice and is not important enough to be in the article twice.
 * done-- Pedro J. the rookie 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I watch this show occasionally - the whole talking dog that everyone can understand and talking baby that most people cannot understand aspects are not really explained well.
 * OK, this is enough - I think it is a lot better, but it still needs some work before I think it could pass an FAC.