Talk:Ocean's Three and a Half/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Initial Review

I am reassessing this article as it currently falls short of the GA criteria. Here are my concerns:

• Well-written?

• Prose quality: Decent, though could be better:

• From the lead:

• It would help to mention Susie's name in "Bonnie gives birth to a baby girl, but Joe then has trouble with medical bills"
• Carter, Joe, and Bonnie should all link to List of Family Guy characters.

• From the plot:

• See above note for Carter and Joe links
• Peter doesn't exactly "propose" to rob Carter; he decides to do so
• For "Lois talks Carter into providing the money", it would help to specify Carter gives the money to Lois as opposed to Peter, Quagmire, Cleveland, and Joe.
• I don't think there should be a semi-colon after the bit on Lois mentioning a divorce lawyer.
• In "Meanwhile, Stewie falls in love with Susie and attempts to win her heart by writing songs and making a detailed music video featuring him singing a direct version of Bryan Adams' song '(Everything I Do) I Do It for You'." from the plot section, I'd indicate that he writes songs specifically for Susie which lead up to the "(Everything I Do) I Do It for You" rendition.
• "a little worried" would read better as "somewhat worried".

• Manual of Style compliance: The lead does not take into account what exactly critics said about the episode, and it's not really needed to mention the organization's names. Really short paragraphs are discouraged per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, so I'd merge or expand the two paragraphs in "Cultural references", and place the review from The Guardian in "Reception" to the second paragraph. "Family Guy" should also be italicized in the quotes from the Los Angeles Times and The Guardian reviews. There are also issues with italics as indicated in references below.

• Verifiable?

• Reference layout: Quite problematic:

• FN1: MSN TV shouldn't be italicized
• FN2: "yourTV.com.au" should probably read "Your TV", and shouldn't be italicized
• FN3: News.com.au shouldn't have italics, and publisher is News Corp
• FN4: Publisher is News Corp
• FN5: I don't think "TUAW" should be in italics
• FN's 6–8: URL's are NOT publishers
• FN9: IGN isn't supposed to be italicized
• FN11: Los Angeles Times needs italics, and the name of the work is not "Hero Complex".
• FN12: Publisher is Guardian Media Group

• Reliable sources: New York Post isn't exactly a high quality reference, so I'd remove its review. I'm also skeptical about "TV by the Numbers", "yourTV.com.au", "Media Life Magazine", and "TUAW".
• No original research: None detected

• Broad in coverage?

• Major aspects: The article fails to include anything on this episode's production process. Quite a glaring omission, and the main thing that prompted me to raise a GAR.
• Focused: No excess detail

• Neutral?: Nothing biased can be found

• Stable?: Seems OK

• Illustrated, if possible, by images?

• Appropriate licensing: Screenshot has complete FUR
• Relevance and captioning: I'm not entirely sure how File:OceansThreeHalf.jpg benefits the article, even if it contains Susie

I'll place this reassessment on hold for seven days. If the article has not improved enough, I will delist it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Request: Can we please do this later? Like in a couple months? I could have easily addressed these things one by one in talk page discussion and not been under a time crunch like this. I've got a lot going on in my life right now. Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll see if anyone in the Family Guy task force or other WikiProjects is willing to take this on, but I cannot in good conscience keep this as a GA in its current state for that long. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am quite willing to work on it. Just not right this second. I don't understand why it couldn't have been addressed via article talk page discussion. — Cirt (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to GA Reassessment

1. Done. Added Susie's name here, as suggested by the GAR comments, above.
2. Done. I've gone back and checked and there are wikilinks for some of these, but we don't want to add too many wikilinks to the exact same Wikipedia page multiple times.
3. Done. Changed "Proposed" to "Decides", as recommended by GAR comments, above.
4. Done. Added specification in wording, as suggested by GAR comments, above.
5. Done. Removed semi-colon, as noted by GAR comments, above.
6. Done. Added suggested wording about Stewie and Bryan Adams.
7. Done. Changed "a little worried", to "somewhat worried".
8. Done. Paragraphs merged in multiple places, as suggested by GAR comments, above.
9. Done. Removed italics from MSN TV ref.
10. Done. Changed ref to "Your TV" and removed italics.
11. Done. Removed italics for News.com.au. Changed publisher to News Corp.
12. Done. Changed publisher to News Corp.
13. Done. Removed italics here.
14. Done. Removed publishers field info from these cites.
15. Done. Removed italics from here.
16. Done. Added italics for this source.
17. Done. Added publisher for this source as suggested by GAR comments, above.
18. Done. I understand the concerns about a source but it's being used for the opinions of the reviewer.
19. Done. In the past we were unable to find secondary sourced info on specific production material for this particular episode. But if the GAR commenter wishes to help with that research, that would be most appreciated.

Hopefully, at this point in time, I've addressed at least the vast majority of the above suggestions, most of which were quite helpful.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You've done well so far. If necessary, you can use Seth MacFarlane's own commentary for production. See You're Getting Old as an example, which is sourced to commentary from South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker. I see that while reference formatting has been corrected, there are still dubious sources used when they shouldn't be included. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm currently in the middle of traveling and don't have access to commentary for production right now, SNUGGUMS, perhaps you could help with that? — Cirt (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have access right now either :/. Let's see if anyone in the projects I notified can help..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Thank you also, SNUGGUMS, for acknowledging my efforts to address the vast majority of your points raised, with my nineteen (19) notes on that, above. Thank you for your comment, "You've done well so far." That is most appreciated. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course. For anyone who comes across this reassessment: commentary from MacFarlane (or any other Family Guy cast members) could also potentially help with cultural references and maybe even themes as well as production. Lack of production information is what really keeps this from being GA-worthy at the moment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

As already noted, above, I've gone through point-by-point and successfully addressed the bulk of the vast majority of the suggestions raised on how to improve this article. It looks like no one else has come by to help out further. I could really use an extension at this point in time. In my personal experience, in the past, "GA Reassessment" typically is allowed to run for a good while. Thank you for your understanding. — Cirt (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

While I commend your efforts, I'm sorry to say that the lack of breadth is a remaining substantial issue, and I can no longer in good conscious let this remain as a GA. The unreliable sources are also a concern. Unfortunately, I am now delisting this article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS:Could I please have some more time? Perhaps just an additional seven days? Thank you for your understanding, — Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but no: I gave a deadline and a chance for others to attend to the article, and the deadline has passed. While this has already been delisted, I will say that I have no prejudice against you or others renominating this for GA after expanding the article with production details, however long that might take. At this point, it's better to have another user review this at a future GAN. Best of luck, Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, I'm quite disappointed in your lack of patience in this matter, as in the past I've seen "Good Article Reassessments" go on for much longer than just 7 days, often quite longer than that. — Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)