Talk:Chick Cancer

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chick Cancer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Everything's looking good, and I've only got a few suggestions for getting the article to GA:

• In the infobox, separate multiple entries in the writers & guest stars parameters with line breaks.
• Stewie seeks advice from Brian on how to make Olivia like him, and he tells him that treating woman in a mean manner will make them like you, directly after showing him Quagmire's rude behavior towards a female guest at his house - the subject of all the "he"s and "him"s and "his"es is unclear as both Stewie and Brian are being referred to.
• After the marriage, which Rupert officiated - fiction written in present tense?
• their relationship steadily get worse - "gets"?
• the cardboard box, which him and Olivia were using as a house - "he and Olivia".
• The film ends here, but is received badly by Peter's friends due to its poor plot outline - "but" doesn't seem to logically link the two clauses.
• "Oh yeah, I could totally get into that". - period should go inside the quotation marks as the quote is a full sentence.
• an act break that is unrelated entirely to the storyline, can be included in an episode - no need for a comma here.
• Reference 3 is cited twice after this (^) sentence.
• "gave in." - here, period should be outside the quotation marks as the quote isn't a full sentence.
• Brian repeatedly telling Stewie that it's not his fault - avoid contractions; use "is not".

Otherwise, it looks fine. The article will be on hold for seven days, so good luck making changes in that time. —97198 talk 02:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

All done. A lot of these were my silly mistakes. Thanks for the review. Qst (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I'll get right to it, but can you give me an example? Also, I suggest you make your edit summaries when adding copyedit/maintenance tags to an article a little less harsh; nobody likes to see their hard work being brought down. Qst (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Familyguychickcancer.JPG needs to be scaled down to low resolution per the fair use criteria. It needn't be much bigger than it appears in the infobox. —97198 talk 08:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the standard image size for images used in infoboxes for Simpsons and Family Guy GAs. As regarding the image needing to be scaled down, this has came up before in a completely different article - and I explained to the person that WP:NFC doesn't state that images need to be a certain scale, hence this is not necessary. 11:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, if you're not satisfied with my above response, I can provide both old and new examples of GAs having fair use images of the same, or indeed a larger scale. Qst (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be somewhat-consensus over these discussions [1] [2] [3] that any fair use image going way over 0.1 megapixels needs good justification to do so. Our image here is currently over 0.2 megapixels (twice the recommended maximum) and seeing as there's no real critical commentary accompanying the given scene, I don't really see any reason why it needs to be so big. And I don't really think the Family Guy / Simpsons "standards" are a valid reason. —97198 talk 12:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry but the non-free content critiera doesn't state this, and I've had 20 or so other articles passed GAC without this problem, and I know hundreds of others have. I don't think I need to make this change, to be honest. Feel free to request input somewhere else, but it is not necessary for me to make the change. Qst (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(<--) See #3b of the Non-free content criteria: Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Is the image here not twice as big as it needs to be? And I'm not reviewing "hundreds of other" articles, I'm reviewing this one. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion, but it'd probably apply here. —97198 talk 12:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The image itself isn't even that big. You're being silly over such a small issue, and I'm going to request a third opinion. As far as I know, th only way to reduce an images resolution is to crop it, and doing so would take part of the subject away. Qst (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest making the biggest dimension 300 pixels.--Rockfang (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Gazimoff has kindly agreed to re-scale it, as I'm not sure how to do it. Qst (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Gazimoff has kindly done that, as I wasn't sure how too. Qst (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for doing that even though I was being so "silly". It took some convincing but the changes are made and I'll pass the article. —97198 talk 13:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is looking better but the plot section needs a thorough copy-edit. There are several run-on sentences and the some of the prose is awkward and clunky. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Qst (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

The current image width is 250px. It is currently sized down to 220px in the infobox. Because of this, the "infobox image" is blurrier than the actual image. I suggest 1 of 2 things get done:

1. Change the actual image width to 220px...or...
2. Change the infobox image width to 250px.

--Rockfang (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Vagina/Angry Hymen

On the DVD, she dies of a rotten vagina, on TV airings, she dies of an angry hymen... this should be addressed.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chick Cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106163045/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=112806_08 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=112806_08

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)