Wikipedia:Peer review/Family Guy (season 7)/archive1

Family Guy (season 7)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get it to FL status and then get the entire season as a GT.

Thanks, Pedro J.  the rookie 18:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

 * The Cast and 'Crew subsections are a little listy. Any extra info or rearrangement which can break up the text would be good. Even moving some stuff from reception.

doing Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC) If you have any questions, ping me on my talk page--by default, I don't watchlist peer reviews. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments by David Fuchs
 * Coverage and content
 * Why does the infobox mention volumes in region 1 (presumably segments of the season), but then has different seasons mentioned for region 2?
 * Who wrote the log lines for the episodes? They sound like regurgitated press releases, complete with exclamatory sentences! and lame puns ("the town goes to pot"?) These all really need to be rewritten, especially if they have been copied wholesale from another source.
 * Why does the "cast" section repeat season 1 credits? Can't that be condensed into a simple mention?
 * "Local station Televen was threatened with fines for broadcasting the show (which were avoided by airing an episode of Baywatch instead)," Does this mean that Televen was forced to run Baywatch to avoid fines? I'm not following.
 * There are spots where words appear to be transliterated, garbled, or missing, i.e., "a title frequently given the series by the group". Another copyedit when the above issues are resolved would be in order.
 * I'm not really sure four reviewers from three outlets makes a comprehensive reception section. In addition, the IGN lists seem like irrelevant trivia.
 * Images/NFC
 * Mostly the article has freely-licensed imagery; I'm not sure File:Family Guy Vol7.jpg meets WP:NFCC as the show is not necessarily primarily represented by the home video art, and it's not the subject of any critical commentary within the article. In addition, it's definitely too high-resolution for necessary purposes.