Talk:The Son Also Draws

The Son Also Draws has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

The Son Also Draws is part of the Family Guy (season 1) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 11, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
September 1, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Animation: American / Family Guy Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Family Guy work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Why does each episode need it's own article? This seems like major, non-notable, overkill here. Tedernst 07:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an episode from a TV series of tremendous cultural importance. Who the heck appointed you to label things "non-notable"? ShutterBugTrekker 19:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More people care about it than say, Brideshead Revisited. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

aw come on canada. dont be offended. im canadian i think its fuckin hilarious.I am Paranoid 21:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"tremendous cultural importance"??? I love the show, but in a few years when its cancelled you will realize that it had zero impact on our culture. eLeigh33 03:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are so many interesting cultural refrences and im sure most of us don't get of all of them while watching, please keep these explanations! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.213.237.127 (talk)

Fair use rationale for Image:FGTheSonAlsoDraws.png

Image:FGTheSonAlsoDraws.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no!!! This is the only picture of the episode we have, if you remove it we will have nothing, please think of the consequences. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Native American stereotypes...

Removed the line "The episode is full of Native American stereotypes that many Indians would find insulting" under WP:POV. Somestrangeflea (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no need to make a whole section about it. Edit summary is there for a reason. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 18:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Man, I haven't watched this season in years. I'm going to have to dig out the dvds post haste.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Few fiddly bits to see to. Nothing huge.
" including those centered around Happy Days..." -> "including references to Happy Days..."
"in contrast to the remaining episodes" -> unless this specifically means the episodes aired after this one, I would change it to "the other episodes".
Your plot section should probably explain who each family member is briefly. For instance, open with "Chris, the family's teenage son, hates...". These articles are likely to be read out of context at some point so a bit of exposition in each one helps explain things to non-viewers.
"Production" has a lot of "this episode", maybe change some to "the episode" or "The Son Also Draws" just for variance.
Retitle "DVD release" as "Home media", as there'll eventually be blu-ray and whatnot.
One of your refs (6) is the only one cited to the book you've got listed. You could just include the book there as a single citation if you want. If you'd rather keep it as it is, you'll still need to change the "pp. 32" bit - "pp." specifies pages, so it should be "p.32" instead.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
MOS is fine.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Referencing is fine. You'll want to see to ref 6 as above, but it's only a grammatical error, not a mis-citation.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Scope's fine. You've got a nice "Cultural references" section which is cited and in prose, which can be a rarity.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Stable.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are grand. Both used correctly. One is commons and not a problem, the other is fair-use with a solid rationale.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
95% ready to go. Just going to hold this one while the problems with 1a are sorted, which should add up to about 5 minutes of editing all told.

Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. Fixed the ref thing for you, it was just a case of changing the "pages=" field to "page=" instead, I probably should have made that clearer. Still, article has passed. Well done! GRAPPLE X 23:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Son Also Draws. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 12:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]