Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 5)/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Dabomb87 17:23, 16 January 2010 [1].

Family Guy (season 5) edit

Nominator(s): Pedro J. the rookie, GageSkidmore, Qst
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because after it faild the first nomination i was ocupaded by another FLC but now i am able to give this nomination a lot of atention. Pedro J. the rookie 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, it hasn't changed at all since the previous nomination. Ωphois 23:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it failed because it did not have enough reviewers--Pedro J. the rookie 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only somewhat true. It was unsuccessful because there was no consensus, among the reviewers who did look at the article, that this list should be promoted to FL. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The boxset is red, so the color for the infobox and the table should be red also.
done--Pedro J. the rookie 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No source for the second half of the second paragraph in "Production."
done--Pedro J. the rookie 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third paragraph in same section, source only confirms that Phineas and Ferb has been nominated for an Emmy. Everything else is unsourced.
Not much information about that i will look further--Pedro J. the rookie 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No source for the entire first paragraph in "Reception."
done--Pedro J. the rookie 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No source for last statement in the last paragraph of "Reception."
donre--Pedro J. the rookie 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As requested. Article needs some improvements, especially in sourcing. Cheers, The Flash {talk} 16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Issues taken care of; article meets requirements in my eyes. The Flash {talk} 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support also - Per previous nomination, which should have passed. Gage (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominators' supports are assumed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I point out that the reception section is extremely lacking. Many of the scant reviews it does have just say "such and such were great episodes" without giving any indication as to why they were great (which pretty much makes them useless, IMO). Anyways, again I will leave it up to Dabomb87. Ωphois 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the prose in the production section could use some work. The info related to Brian's girlfriend is confusing in its current wording. Ωphois 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i guessed youed say that ohpios but i will not object, will see if i can re-word it--Pedro J. the rookie 18:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i think he did not see that--Pedro J. the rookie 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I will be on vacation for three weeks and there's a good chance that I will not be closing this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to now--Pedro J. the rookie 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was requested to review this list, which puzzles me a bit, since I do citation formatting over at FACs, and there's no requirement for consistent formatting of citations here, other than MOS. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IGN is cited in multiple ways (3), it is a publisher, or a "newspaper" type title. Parents Television Council (of where? The world is larger than the US) is cited in 3 ways. BBC Three is incorrectly cited, BBC has multiple stations. Plus you'd need to make clear that they're programme guides, not the object itself. Same with the IGN objects with titles identical to the show. "^ "FAMILY GUY". The futon critic. Retrieved 2009-10-03." is unnecessarily duplicated given that you're using refnames, unless it relates to the different broadcasting dates, in which case you could say that in the cite, "Family Guy: [episode name] broadcast: broadcast date"... Speaking of MOS regarding titles in all caps. Generally, your citations are misnamed. Is Amazon referring to the object of FG season X, or to the advertising material and cataloguing information... But as I said, FLCs have a different criteria. Check your MOS for perfect details, this is simply what I'd point out at FAC if it were held to FAC standards. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I was asked on my talk page to review this list, and so I come bearing comments. However, I am concerned about some of the repetitive phrasing I'm seeing after reviewing the first part of the page.

  • Blind Ambition links to a disambiguation page.
  • "before being released as a DVD box set and in repeat broadcasts." It says later in the article that there were two box sets, so why does this say one?
  • "the first episode was 'Stewie Loves Lois' and the season's final episode 'Meet the Quagmires'." Missing "was" after "final episode".
  • The quotes in the second paragraph of the lead should be cited. Normally content doesn't need to be cited in the lead if it is in the body, but it's better to be safe with quotes and very controversial statements.
  • "Season five won one Annie Award at the 35th Annie Awards for storyboarding and was nominated for three other Annie Awards including for writing and voice acting." Very redundant use of Annie Awards; three times in one sentence is a bit much. Also don't like the "including for" part, which is not great grammar. How about "included those for"?
  • Consecutive sentences start "Season fice" and "Season 5". Pick one and be consistent. Per WP:MOSNUM, I'd go with the first option.
  • "There were 18 episodes produced for the season." This is repeating information from the second sentence of the article.
  • "Thirteen of the total eighteen episodes are included in the volume." Another redundant word, this time "total". Removing it harms nothing; in fact, it makes the sentence tighter as a whole.
  • Production: "As the fifth season began production, (long list of names) ... ,". Something is clearly missing from the end of this sentence.
  • "before leaving the show to create his own series, entitled Phineas and Ferb, a series which has since been nominated for three Emmy Awards." Again, the struck words represent repetitive phrasing.

I'll come back to review more at a later time. Meanwhile, please consider finding an outside copy-editor to take a look at the page and clean it up. I'd hate to see a bunch of problems in the episode summaries, which are usually a problem spot for similar FLCs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gage (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note before I make these comments that I left one unstruck above.
  • "Other guest stars who made multiple appearances as recurring characters from previous seasons, comprised...". I don't think the comma should be there. It seems like a minor point, but I would quickly check for similar punctuation issues elsewhere to ensure the best possible writing.
  • "The decision to end the fifth season before the 100th episode was made due to Fox executive's desire to show...". Move the apostrophe to after the last letter of "executives". Otherwise, it reads like it was one executive's call.
  • The first paragraph of Reception contains an overload of "also"s. I don't think these add anything to the text, and believe they should be dropped. The previous section has a few as well, with varying degrees of necessity.
  • In the quote from Gord Lacey, there is a hyphen in the text where we would normally have an en dash. I believe we are allowed to adjust a quote in this fashion, so it would be worth it to make this confirm with our style standards.
  • Episode 1: "While attempting to receive one from the Dr. Elmer Hartman". Remove "the".
  • Episode 3: "she demands that Peter and Lois to allow her to buy a car." Remove first "to".
  • "Despite showing an interest in a station wagon, Peter uses her money to buy a military tank." This makes little sense. Did Meg show the interest?
  • Episode 5: "so he requests Lois to do his work for him". Should this be similar to "so he requests that Lois do his work for him."? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done and not sure where the 18 episodes is mentioned outside the lead and the DVD information. Gage (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Episode 6: Comma after Doug.
  • Episode 7: Another comma after Rupert.
  • "he leaves the house in anger, but decides to set fire to it". I don't see the contrast in this sentence that "but" implies. Perhaps this should be "and" instead?
  • Episode 12: Space in "airtraffic" for "Quagmire eventually contacts Peter, Cleveland and Joe via airtraffic control".
  • In some of the summaries, I detect a few unnecessary links, such as pornography and boyfriend in episode 6 (fairly common terms). In contrast, the episode 16 summary could contain links for Swan Lake and the No Child Left Behind Act, since those are more specialized and useful.
  • DVD release: "The remaining five episodes of the fifth season, along with the first seven of the sixth season, were also released under the title 'Volume 6' by 20th Century Fox, in the United States and Canada on October 21, 2008, five months after it had completed broadcast on television." A couple of picky prose items here. First, the comma after 20th Century Fox should not be there. Second, "it" should be changed to "they", since the item in question is the number of episodes, not a season.
  • Regarding the 18 episodes, I'm commenting about the information being repeated in the lead itself. The second sentence says "It includes 18 episodes", and the third paragraph says "There were 18 episodes produced for the season." They are heavily repetitive of each other, which is glaring since they are both in the lead. As I should have said above, why not chop the second one to avoid this?
  • The general reference should be formatted like the others, with publisher and date of access. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the status on Giants' comments? More importantly, has an independent copy-editor looked at the prose as per his suggestion? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Family_Guy_(season_5)/archive2&oldid=1138479864"