Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 4)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Family Guy (season 4) edit

Nominator(s): Blurred Lines 14:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because by the peer review that was made a few months ago, and the only problems that were found was the dead references and the British - American language, which was easily fixed by me. Also, by it's information, it does meet the FL criteria, and should be promoted. Blurred Lines 14:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose,~~ suggest WP:Featured list instead. That's what Family Guy (season 5) and Family Guy (season 8) are classified as, and it seems more appropriate for season articles. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Blurred Lines 18:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia A few notes after a quick look:

The article talk page is templated with a note about several broken section links that date back to 2010; can you check whether those still need fixing?

Done I have just checked those links, they seem to be fine, so I have removed the template from the talk page. Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly in the reference section (but also elsewhere), I see quite a few wikilinks inside quotations, which MOS says to avoid. Most of them are elementary-school-level vocabulary words (God, sex, sacred, profane, condom, racism) so there's really no need to link them anyway. Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of italicized redlinks in the reference section that seem malformed: they don't point to likely article titles. Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Sales of the DVD set reached 2.2 million copies,[6] becoming the best-selling television DVD of 2003" - grammatically, this says sales became the best-selling television DVD. This could be fixed with "The DVD set sold 2.2 million copies, making it the best-selling..." Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Fox president Gail Berman said that it was one of her most difficult decisions to cancel the show, and was therefore happy it would return" - garbled; perhaps "Berman said canceling the show was one of her most difficult decisions, and she was therefore..." Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Fewer critics responded negatively to the season; Seattle Post-Intelligencer critic Melanie McFarland reacted very negative" - negative is an adjective; you need an adverb here, and preferably a different one to avoid redundancy with the first half of the sentence. Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see other grammar issues in the episode summaries, but don't have the time for a full review at the moment; will try to make it back to the article. Agree that FL is probably the proper venue. Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Maralia (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dtngo (talk) Great article! I believe that this page is written excellently. It also has the standard format of a television and is easy to navigate. However, some of the citations in the reference list can be updated with online references:

For the 4th citation, the Gordon article can be found online here: [2]
For the 26th citation, the Golden Reel nominations and recipients can be found in an archived page here: [3]
For the 27th citation, the McGuire article can be found online here: [4]

I hope this helps. Dtngo (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on the content, not the contributor.

Dear @Blurred Lines: please refrain from striking other people's comments, even if you've done what they asked. I have struck my oppose as it isn't relevant anymore, however. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been indeffed as a sockpuppet. I suggest quickfailing unless somebody else is willing to take up the task of responding to comments. Beerest355 Talk 23:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally new to this area, but I'd hold off on quickfailing as the user is requesting unblock and I'd pick up the slack if requested to ensure its passage if need be. It looks like the nominator could be unblocked within 48 hours. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the good news, I have been unblocked, so this request can still survive. Blurred Lines 01:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.