Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Road to the Multiverse/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Road to the Multiverse edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to eventually be able to get this article to FA status. I've attempted to expand the article as much as possible, but I'd hope a final polishing, and maybe a slight expansion (though I believe it's been greatly broadened in its coverage) would be able to get the article to featured status.

Thanks, Gage (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been a week since I started this review. Any feedback would be extremely helpful. Gage (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The show sounds interesting, and you've got good material here, but I got lost toward the end of the "Plot" section, and many of the minor characters such as Peter and Meg need a bit of fleshing out to be meaningful in the context of this article. I would suggest adding more background, perhaps even a "Characters" section. Here are other suggestions, many of them related to prose and style.

Lead

  • Consider linking remote control?
  • "Series creator and executive producer Seth MacFarlane publicly sided with the Writers Guild and fully participated in the strike until its conclusion." - Tighten by deleting "publicly" and "fully"?
  • ""Road to the Multiverse" was the first episode to be produced and subsequently aired after the conclusion of the strike." - Tighten by deleting "subsequently" and changing "conclusion of the strike" to "strike ended"?

Plot

  • "Stewie bites the dog version of Peter" - It would be good to explain briefly who Peter is. The link is fine, but you don't want to send readers away from the article to find out the basics.
  • "Dog Brian, human Brian and dog Stewie" - Things get confusing here. Is Brian different from Human Brian? Is "Dog Stewie" different from "dog Stewie"? Is "human Brian" different from "Human Brian"? Since three characters—Brian, Stewie, and human Brian—escape together, it appears that at the least that Brian and "human Brian" are not the same. I am lost.
    • I'm not sure what you are referring to. Are you trying to point out capitalization? Brian, the one who regularly appears in the series, is a dog, not a human, so a distinction is necessary between the Human version of Brian in the Dog universe, and the Dog version of Brian from the regular universe. Gage (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was just a matter of capitals until I got to the sentence that said "As they are being transported, human Brian, dreaming of a better life in a world of intelligent humans, leaps into the inter-universe portal at the last moment and successfully makes it to the original universe with the other two." Since the other two are described as "Stewie and Brian", the character "human Brian" must not be the same as the character "Brian". Until I read that sentence, I thought they were the same. So, the capitals need to be consistent, but something about the logic needs fixing too. Finetooth (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the capitalization problems, and attempted to cut down on the use of the character's names, as well as the words dog and human. Gage (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. There are three, two human Brians and one Stewie. The second human Brian was the pet in the dog universe. Finetooth (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are four. One, human Stewie, was taken away to the pound already. So there are three that go to rescue him, one dog Brian (from regular universe), one human Brian (from dog universe), and one dog Stewie (from dog universe). Gage (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production and development

  • "parodying the science fiction television series Sliders.[8][2]" - When two or more citations numbers appear together, they should be arranged in ascending order; i.e., [2][8] in this case. Ditto for similar sequences elsewhere in the article.
    • Done. If I spot any more, I will attempt to fix that. Gage (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've corrected any similar instances. Gage (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Main Street Productions, who were approached" - Main Street Productions is a "which" rather than a "who".
  • "David A. Goodman played a key role in the episode's original development, being a fan of science fiction and the series Sliders." - Misplaced modifier. Since "development" isn't a fan, perhaps this would be better: "David A. Goodman, a fan of science fiction and the series Sliders, played a key role in the episode's original development
  • "In addition to traditional animation, the episode also saw a parody of Robot Chicken," - Since episodes can't literally see, perhaps "In addition to traditional animation, the episode included a parody of Robot Chicken,"?
  • "instead animated by the Los Angeles animation company Screen Novelties who had previously worked" - Screen Novelties is a "which" rather than a "who".
  • "a mini-feature entitled Family Guy Karaoke. - Should the whole title be in italics? Or, if it's similar to a short story, should it be in quotes; i.e., "Family Guy Karaoke"?
    • Done. Italics seem more proper. Gage (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references

  • "In this universe everything is seemingly years in advance of present day" - Using "the 21st century" instead of "present day" would be better because more specific. Also, Christians might question whether the end of their religion was an advance. The only example you give of an advance is an instant AIDS pill.
    • Done. I attempted to expand the sentence. The AIDS pill was simply the one example that was acknowledged through dialogue. The world around them was entirely futuristic as well. Gage (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they come upon Meg, who has become significantly more attractive" - Who is Meg? A brief explanation should be included here; this is similar to the problem with Peter mentioned above.
  • "Further playing on the nonexistence of Christianity" - No playing was mentioned before this, so "further" is perhaps not the right word.
  • "Peter and Lois are shown dressed in a manner" - Who is Lois?
  • "and Herbert appearing as the Queen" - Who is Herbert?
  • "Mort Goldman" - Who is Mort Goldman?
  • "Disparaged, Brian and Stewie transport themselves to a universe" - Do you mean "discouraged" rather than "disparaged"?
  • "resembling the Adult Swim series Robot Chicken[24]," - Comma should come before ref.
  • "who voices Chris Griffin" - Who is Chris Griffin?
  • "A sequence similar to the Zapruder film is shown... " - Linking is fine, but it would be good to briefly explain what the "Zapruder film" refers to so that readers don't have to navigate away to learn the basics.

Reception

  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations like the one in the last two sentences of this section should not contain wikilinks since they are not part of the original.
  • "Ramsey Isler, IGN" - Should IGN be spelled out as well as abbreviated here?
    • As IGN is never referred to as "Imagine Games Network", which, as a regular IGN user, even I had to look up what the abbreviation stood for, I don't think spelling it out would be considered necessary, unless you think otherwise.

Images

Each image must be licensed in a way that makes its copyright status verifiable by anyone who wants to check it. Someone will certainly check the image licenses at FAC, and this license will not pass because the link to the source document from which the image ostensibly came is dead. This is similar to the problem of a dead url in a citation. It's sometimes possible to find a replacement url; perhaps the host site simply moved things around. Since NASA is the cited source for the image, I think the chances are good that you can find the image somewhere on the NASA pages. The dead url is here. If you can find a working url for the image and verify that the image is "free", then the fix for the problem would be to replace the dead url with the new url. If you can't find a way to make the image license verifiable, then you shouldn't use the image, and if you do, it will not pass FAC. In fact, if the license is unverifiable, the image shouldn't be on the Commons. I'm assuming it was verifiable when it was uploaded, but who knows? Please ask again if I have still not made the problem clear. Finetooth (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my apologies, for some reason I confused your concerns about the Disney portrait with the Disney image in the infobox. I'll attempt to locate a replacement URL. I thought I was able to find the image on their site, so I'll look for it. Gage (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I looked at the link, and it still seems to work for me, so I'm not sure why it is appearing as a dead link for you. Regardless, I linked to the direct image instead. Gage (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new link takes me to the original, which is good. I don't know why the large version would be visible and the small one not visible on my computer. Finetooth (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. You mentioned in your comments above that you had been waiting in line for a week. That's not unusual, and the reason is that while many contributors want reviews, a smaller number of contributors are willing to review, which is time-consuming and sometimes difficult. You could help shorten the line by reviewing articles from time to time. Finetooth (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Road_to_the_Multiverse/archive1&oldid=375189702"