Wikipedia:Peer review/PTV (Family Guy)/archive1

PTV (Family Guy)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I belive it may have what it takes to pass the FAC criteria.

Thanks, Pedro J.  the rookie 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by Jappalang


 * Checklinks show two expiring links (Chicago Tribune) and one dead link (Emmy); please fix them.


 * "The episode sees the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the shows on television after a controversial wardrobe malfunction at the Emmy Awards."
 * An episode is not a sentient being; how can it "see"?
 * There appears to be a missing word.
 * "Wardrobe malfunction" is a neologism (newly coined expression even though it has been a few years). Not everyone is going to know what that means, and it could be disruptive to one's reading experience if he or she is expected to go to another article just to know the basic meaning of it.


 * "... his own TV network which he calls PTV which broadcasts classic shows unedited and uncut ..."
 * "... which ... which ..." is repetitive.


 * "The episode contains a sequence that shows various scenes of different episodes from the previous episodes."
 * What?


 * "In a lengthy sequence completely unconnected to the main plot of the episode, after preventing Osama bin Laden from sending a hostile message to the United States, Stewie Griffin, parodying the opening scene for The Naked Gun, rides off on his tricycle, cycling through scenes from various movies and video games."
 * Overly long, fragmented and is the thwarting of Bin Laden's scheme part of the sequence?


 * "The episode was shown in the William S. Paley TV Fest, which various writers, directors and voice actors of the show assisted to."
 * Aside from being unsourced, "assisted to" what?


 * MacFarlane's quote need not be 8 sentences long; only his first two sentences are unique enough.


 * Similarly with Povenmire; why should there be such a long quote from him? Quotes should only be used if they cannot be rewritten without losing the intent or flavour of the message.  I do not see much of MacFarlane's or Provenmire's statements that could not be rewritten in an encyclopaedic manner.


 * What is the whole point of Cultural references section? I fail to see an encylopaedic purpose to this.  If they inspired some significant critical remarks, then the article should be mentioning about the commentary.  At best, this section is just a list of trivial matters masked with prose.


 * File:PTV Homer Stewie.jpg fails WP:NFCC. It is merely showing Homer Simpson; a lot of people are aware of what Homer Simpson looks like and he has his own article on Wikipedia (illustrated).  What is this image showing that no words can relay?


 * How does File:FamilyGuyPTV.jpg identify "PTV"?


 * What makes TV Squad (a blog) a reliable source? Please refer to Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how sources are generally judged at FACs.

I believe this article still requires quite a bit of effort to make it of FA quality. Based on the sentences I pointed out above (which are just a few examples), a heavy copy-edit is needed. One might also restructure the article, presenting the material that would be encyclopaedic to the common reader in an orderly manner. Jappalang (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by David Fuchs
 * Please please please find another image of McFarlane than File:Seth MacFarlane by Gage Skidmore 5.jpg. It's just plain overused on dozens of articles. On that note, File:PTV Homer Stewie.jpg fails WP:NFCC. File:FamilyGuyPTV.jpg doesn't seem to have much of a justification, because what it illustrates is adequately covered by text in the article (getting censored by black bars.)
 * "In a lengthy sequence completely unconnected to the main plot of the episode..." - my question then, is why is this important? It's badly written with lots of comma splices and is by own admission irrelevant. It can be referenced in the relevant references or production section instead.
 * On that note the article really needs a copyedit. There's lots of extraneous words and awkward phrasing that you can chop out (ex., "Peter is anticipating to watch the Emmy Awards, but Lois forces him to go to their daughter Meg's play"; "The next day, a news report about David Hyde Pierce's wardrobe malfunction is reported and Peter gets angry at Lois for missing the Emmy Awards for not being able to see that part"→"The next day the news reports David Hyde Pierce's wardrobe malfunction; Peter blames Lois for making him miss the event." or whatever.
 * The reception section doesn't work for me because the critics are only quoted for superlatives; why did the Hartford Courant give a overall bad review? What were specifically mentioned?