Talk:Brian Griffin's House of Payne/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 18:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am reviewing this article. My comments are below.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The plot section is large relative to the article and rather hard to understand. I tried to copy edit is a bit. What does Stewie flying a spaceship and engaging a huge number of enemy forces have to do with the overall plot as a whole? Is it just to justify Stewie's going in to the basement? It would be better of the plot were streamlined to include the relevant story lines. (It does improve further down.)

   "The entire sequence is CGI" - what does this mean?

You'd probably have to watch the episode, to understand that the first four or five minute of the episode was a CGI sequence, completely seperate from reality, as Stewie is imagining himself in a space fight with a steel, Peter shaped space ship. After the CGI sequence cuts, it goes to Stewie standing on the back of the couch, flying a toy spaceship around Peter's head, jabbing it in his ear repeatedly. This causes Peter to throw his bear in the basement, leading to Stewie's discovery of the script. Maybe it can be better stated in the article? Gage (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is well sourced, with no original research.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article remains focused on the subject, but it seem like the cultural references section is rather short and perhaps incomplete.

Actually, this episode had very, very few cultural references, based on most likely the fact that it was the writer's first episode for the entire series. To my knowledge, all the cultural references in the episode are listed. With only a minor joke or two left out. Gage (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I think this article is close to passing. I will place it on hold. Xtzou (Talk) 18:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• ok, I made some more changes so that it made sense to me. Feel free to change any inaccuracies I may have introduced! Xtzou (Talk) 19:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I changed a few more things, hopefully ok.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is well sourced, with no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article remains focused on the subject while covering the relevant areas.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Good work! Xtzou (Talk) 19:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)