Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 1)/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 Dabomb87 21:48, 1 October 2010 [1].

Family Guy (season 1)

Nominator(s): Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i belive it meets the criteria, had a PR before nomination. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This is a very cursory review of the FLC candidate. I will try to review it further tomorrow.
In "Brian: Portrait of a Dog"
- Link to dog show goes to an disamguous page. I suspect you intend Conformation show.
- Is it Brian or Brain? You have it spelled both ways for this episode.
  - Both Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 04:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few Checklink problems: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Family_Guy_(season_1) .
- Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looks like you caught most of these. One remains. Ref 43 Family Guy — Volume 1: DVD Review (info) [ign.com] http://dvd.ign.com/articles/390/390195p1.html redirects to http://uk.dvd.ign.com/articles/390/390195p1.html --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 19: Is corrupt - "Template:Cite web".
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 04:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Dan Dassow (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This article needs to be copy edited for run on sentences and excessive use of passive sentences. For instance:
- "His supportive wife Lois pleads for him not to drink; although Peter claims to comply with her request, he deliberately disobeys her at the party due to encouragement from Quagmire and their friend Cleveland Brown, and acquires a hangover." is an example of a run-on sentence. This sentence should be split into two sentences.
- "Family Guy was developed out of MacFarlane's thesis film The Life of Larry," is passive.
- "MacFarlane developed Family Guy out of his thesis film The Life of Larry," uses active voice.
Information stated about one episode, does not need to be repeated for following episodes. For instance there is no need to repeat the information about why Peter lost his job in the description of the second episode.
- "Peter applies for welfare in order to support his family's well-being after losing his job ~~as Happy-Go-Lucky Toy Factory safety inspector via a hangover which he obtained at a stag party hosted by Quagmire~~."

--Dan Dassow (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - I belive the 3 of them are done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note: What I had commented on before are examples that we should avoid: run-on sentences, excessive use of passive voice and repeating information. I believe these are the some of the writing issues that Rambo's Revenge is referencing. I will not have a time to do a copy edit on the article until this weekend. I intended to make you aware of problems in the interim. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Part I:

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

*Why doesn't this use the standard navbox heading colour. Colours are not decorative and we use standard colours for accesibility and consistency. This goes for the unnecessarily coloured Family Guy navbox too.

- I really see no need it is yellow and it is simple and accesible, like many other shows that have it. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Here are some MoS arguments
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes): "designed ... such that similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format." Colour is a format.
- WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative" and "There should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles"
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear your comment is about the navbox at the end of the artical which says family guy becuase it is blue. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is about two things. 1) The colour of the banner that says "Family Guy season 1" which should not be coloured, and {{Family Guy}} where there is also not justification from deviating from standard colouring. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What dose this have to do with the artrical, the review is to get it to FL and the template is not about it if you have a problem please commente it here, becuase i cannot change that as it will be reverted becuase it is not about the artical. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has plenty to do with the article. It is the header of the maininfobox (top right had corner)! Any way I've done that and the navbox (without yet being reverted). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"between January 31, 1999 to May 16, 1999": between A and B, or from A to B, not the current hybrid.
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"given the green light" - bit colloquial~~
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The pale yellow line break is quite difficult to see and looks strange, to me at least.~~
- That would be more personal opinion. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is, however the contrast is so close to white (behind plot summaries) and it is not obvious that the table has finished (right at the end) because there is no line apart from the very pale yellow. I'm sure others would agree. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What would recomend change it?, if thats the case what color?. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Changed. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay I tweaked a bit, hope that's okay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~A stray full stop after an air-date~~
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pilot air date needs ref
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and so does its prod. code. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite indication to the contrary, only prod. codes 1ACX01, 1ACX04 and 1ACX05 are actually referenced.
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why have you left Ref 8 present on the episode codes it doesn't reference? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't understand why a prod code needs more than one ref. Just choose the best for each. Also if something isn't easy to find, removing it is not the right plan. It then fails 3a. Comprehesiveness. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No references for DVD release dates.
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it was released in Region 4 before I asked for a reference and now it isn't!? Forgive my lack of WP:AGF but I think you need to do some actual looking (Google is pretty powerful) or try some of the places other FLs use to source Region 4 release dates. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Already checked another editor checked, and the result is the same it was realesed but no page says when so it ends up being N/A. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your lethargy towards these suggestions is concerning. I followed my own advice and it took me no more than 5 minutes [2]. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summaries are a bit long. WP:PLOTSUM suggests ~100 words (200 max) for summaries in episode lists.
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some are still over 200. Each episode has its own article where the plot can be summaries. The episodes are only 20-23 mins long. When they are compared to Lost (season 1), The O.C. (season 1) (~42 mins) and The Simpsons (season 3) (~22 mins) FLs the summaries are still much (2 times?) too long. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERSTUFF, i checked it yesterday, and not counting the links all have 200 words ro less. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't other stuff and that is not true. I count 235 words in ep2. This is not some whim this is for copyright reasons: "Information about copyright fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I belive it is done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you once had episode ratings. I think this should be included with the episode lists like The O.C. (season 1).
- I see no need since the info is already in the reception section. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, for all the episodes. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not all of the episodes had ratings. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course it "had ratings" (in fact all shows at whatever time have ratings). As a prime time episode the figures will have been published in something like Variety, Mediaweek or an equivalent. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thats not the case they do not have those ratings family guy was a new show some episodes have rateings that have been realesed some do not. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        What Pedro is attempting to say is that the ratings information is not available. The episodes aired in 1999, and a majority of shows with episodes more than a decade old do not have information with regards to ratings, because they have not been published by any reliable sources whatsoever. ABC Medianet has recently been an essential tool in providing ratings information, but even that website, if I remember correctly, only dates back to 2003. Many, many attempts have been made to locate ratings for the first three seasons of Family Guy, but unfortunately all attempts have been unsuccessful. I'd welcome any attempt to locate the ratings information which you have requested, Rambo, but it is simply unavailable. Gage (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Variety etc. might have it. They can be hard to root out but will most likely be there somewhere. I won't oppose on this basis though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:HASH: "Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings."
- Please pooint out were it is. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Table heading.
    - It is not representing a number, it is a colum, as it is explaind in the Key. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay then there would be no problem with replacing it with a † or something? Except, subconsciously it is represent numbers. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recurring cast members and guest stars for the season included...: read this section through. References are not a substitute for punctuation marks!
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"led to MacFarlane being hired by the company.[23][ ""]. . Retrieved .</ref> In 1996, "~~
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't bothered checking the ep summaries as I think they need re-writing (shortening) anyway.
- All less than 200 words. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are almost all exactly 200. I realise you may think I'm over-insistent on this but I think fair-use considerations are taken seriously. I quickly knocked this up as an example, but you could modify episode 7 from
    "Chris is kicked out of the Youth Scouts after accidentally running over the troop leader at a soapbox derby. Although he truthfully hates being in the scouts and prefers drawing, he fears telling Peter, who learns of Chris' eviction and decides to travel with the family to Youth Scout headquarters in Manhattan to get Chris readmitted. The family stops at a Native American casino as Peter needs to use the bathroom, but Lois quickly becomes addicted to gambling and loses the family car. Peter, however, devises a plan that involves posing as an Indian, as each member of the Native tribe receives a share of the casino's profit. The doubtful Indian elders demand that he go on a vision quest to prove his heritage. Chris accompanies Peter into the wilderness, hoping to tell him that he only wants to draw instead of being in the Scouts. Delirious from hunger, Peter begins talking to anthropomorphic trees and sees a vision of his spiritual guide, the Fonz. He finally listens to Chris's complaints and realizes his son is a talented artist. They return to the casino and reclaim their car."
  - to
    "Chris is evicted from the Youth Scouts when he runs over the troop leader. Although Chris dislikes scouts and prefers drawing, he fears telling Peter. When Peter learns of Chris’ eviction, he drives the family to the scout headquarters in Manhattan to get Chris readmitted. They stop for the bathroom at a Native American casino and Lois becomes a gambling addict and loses the family car. As each Native receives a share of the casino profits, Peter poses as an Indian but is sent on a vision quest to prove his heritage. Chris accompanies Peter to explain that he only wants to draw. Delirious from hunger, Peter begins taking to anthropomorphic trees and has a vision of his spiritual guide, the Fonz. Peter realizes his son’s talent for drawing and they return to the casino and reclaim the car."
  - This way you lose 60 words, and I beleive something similar could be done for each episode. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done, each one is at least 167 or lower. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Rambo could you please slash the comments that have been resolved like you did on your first comments. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part II: The above was getting clunky and hard to follow so I'll start again.

~~I don't understand why a prod code needs more than one ref (three is ridiculus). Just choose the best for each.~~
- Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If something isn't easy to find, removing it is not the right plan. It then fails 3a. Comprehesiveness.
- You have to nderstand that the episode is barley recognized, not even the season guide shows it as an episode it aired, and hen the first offical episode was the same plot bu a bit extended. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pilot episopde removed as it is not considerd a season episode. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Float the picture in Development to the right. For me (quite a wide screen) it hangs down into the Production section and indents the new heading and text which looks odd.~~
- Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you removed the DVD table? If you look in my comments (now capped) I even found a cite for the Region 4 release. I suggest you use it.
- Reviewer Ophios commented that it should be changed and put on prose, at the end it is the same thing. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I requested that he replace the table with prose per upcoming MOS guidelines. Ωphois 23:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - One way or another I think you should use the Region 4 release date I gave you. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 50 doesn't give any ratings. According to the headers it % change. As for a rank of 33, that needs context. That is probably for prime time TV shows, you'd need to find out. If it was programs Super Bowl et al would be up there.
- Done. 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
~~No ref for 40.2 rating in Super Bowl.~~
- Removed as that information is not relavent to the artical. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"crops No.&nsbp;1 in "Stewie"~~
- Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned there are no reviews from the site. People may look back on a succesful series in a more favourable light. I think it is important to be completely WP:NPOV and have something from the time. There will have been something in print: Variety, USA Today or even local papers. Often archives on newspaper websites don't go back that far but LexisNexis or ProQuest go much further back and should be able to help.
- This will take its time but i will keep looking. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Summaries need a good univolved run from a copyeditor (examples from first ep):~~
- "airline pilot friend Glenn Quagmire to" -> airline pilot friend, Glenn Quagmire, to
- "Although Peter claims to comply with her request, he deliberately disobeys her at the party due to encouragement from Quagmire and their friend Cleveland Brown, and acquires a hangover." missing comma. Believe it should be he deliberately disobeys her at the party' due to.
- ~~"his subsequent firing. After being fired for negligence,"~~
- ~~while working as a Happy-Go-Lucky Toy Factory safety inspector~~
  - Will try to find a CE. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - CE finished. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Much happier now due to copyedit (thanks Dank). In future, though, please try to get this done before FLC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more: The FUR for the non-free image is not good enough. It is a boilerplate FUR for a film. If you read through it, there are many parts that don't make sense. These are supposed to be individual. Also, could you do the same for the image on the existing season FL. I know this is strictly out of the remit of this FLC, but featured work is often mimmicked and sometimes taken as gospel in how seasons should be structured so I think in that respect we have a responsibility here to set the correct example. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think i fixed the first season image, i will do the FL later today. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Nomader ^(Talk) 05:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*I only had time to generally glance over the list, so this review unfortunately won't be too extensive. I'll try to come back and add more to it later.

The pilot episode's general information (like director, writer, and the production code) isn't referenced, although the other episodes are. You should go ahead and add citations to the pilot's information as well to be consistent.
- I belive it is done, could not find refrence for production code so put it as N/A. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Rambo's Revenge above, I think that particular color of yellow is a bit hard to make out. I'd go with a darker, more defined color if you could. Nomader ^(Talk) 00:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed, now it is darker and more notable yellow, hope that works. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why does List of Family Guy DVDs state that season 1 was released on DVD in Region 4 when above you say that it wasn't released there in your comments to Rambo's Revenge?
- Le me clarify, it was obiously realesed in that region, but we cannot find any sources that says what exact time was it, and the DVDs artical dose not contain it either so to that matter and criteria if no source can say it exactlly when it was realased it is considered N/A. 03:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  - Could you say "Released" instead? N/A could imply that it wasn't released at all in the region. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, you mention that "Other assessments were that the season was "extremely witty and darkly hilarious", and was "unfortunately" canceled." However, it only cites one sentence. Couldn't you just say "Critic Aaron Beierle felt that..." at the beginning of the sentence instead? Prose is my weak point so feel free to not heed my advice here.
- Is that what you meant. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once you've addressed these two other concerns and Rambo's concerns above, I'll be willing to support. Nomader ^(Talk) 01:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As soon as Rambos's responds to my comments and we can disscuss things i will finish his concerns. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DragonZero

Not much to say, I think its pretty good already. Episodes 4 and 7 have remnants of incomplete sentences. ("They" in episode 4 and that single "S" hanging in episode 7.)
- I belive it is done, think so. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 4, "the burning basement however they, Stewie reverses time just as Peter is having an epiphany about how he treats Lois." Grammar mistake. Episode 7, become unstable s, and finds him in the streets, the "S" is still there. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 06:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bold-ed the quoted part of episode 4 with the loose they in the above. Its still there. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 05:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References are a bit inconsistent. They switch between date formats, it would look nicer if they followed the format most common in the article.
- This is so much easier with the script- takes about 5 seconds- I just did this one for y'all. Courcelles 02:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank i apriciate it. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And following the comments of Rambo, I'll be staying neutral until his suggestions are solved. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are redirects that need to be fixed like Cartoon Network (United States) which redirects to Cartoon Network, Larry shorts redirects to The Life of Larry and Larry & Steve and What a Cartoon! which redirects to The Cartoon Cartoon Show. JJ98 (Talk) 10:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Per upcoming MOS guidelines, DVD information should be presented in prose and not in tables.
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the episode number column represented by "†"? It would make more sense for it to be "#" or "No."
- Changed. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The production section says, "Season one also saw the introduction of several recurring characters, including Peter's employer Jonathan Weed, and police chief Joe Swanson." It is the first season, so of course characters will be introduced. Listing new characters is irrelevant to the production section unless production-related info is then provided.
- Done Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~What makes The TV Critic a reliable source?~~
- In his "ABOUT" section you can see that at least major news networks in the UK consult with him. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The final paragraph of the reception section is a mess and needs to be fixed. It reads, "The first season of Family Guy aired during the 1998–99 United States television season; the season premiere "Death Has a Shadow" aired after Super Bowl XXXIII on January 31, 1999 and achieved a total of 22.01 million viewers, attributed mostly to the large audience received by the Super Bowl, which it itself received a rating of 40.2 by Nielsen ratings, while the season finale "Brian: Portrait of a Dog" earned a total of 12.8 million viewers; the season finished with a ranking of 33 in the Nielsen ratings."
- I had to eliminate some information so i really not sure if i corrected it or just made it worst can you tell me. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That information has been changed alot so i do npt now if you still have a problem with it. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Development section is redundant, in my opinion. It is already present on the main page and the pilot episode's article. This list should cover elements more relevant to the season, not the series.
- I would not think so but i will remove it if you insist. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I say this because the development section covers the shaping of the series itself. This list is supposed to cover the makings of the season. Ωphois 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~There is no source for the release of the Region 4 DVD. I would suggest citing this. Although it doesn't have a release date, it at least verifies that it was released.~~ Ωphois 06:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The refs need to be cleaned up some. There is inconsistency in italicization, and some are just lower-case titles jumbled together. Ωphois 21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean that some titles like the TV critic is ictalized. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. And IGN is italicized sometimes, and sometimes isn't italicized. The italicization of websites is not consistent, either. You italicized TV by the Numbers and IGN sometimes, but didn't do so for EzyDVD or Yahoo! TV. Ωphois 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cleaned them up. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still is inconsistent. Ω phois 03:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this a reliable source? Ωphois 21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is owned by Yahoo inc, GeoCities. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it is a problem with Entertainment Weekly. It's the fact that you are trusting it is from. It is GeoCites userpage and "knifeman" (i.e. Joe Bloggs) is saying it is from EW. There is nothing stopping me uploading a similar page but if I wanted to be malicious I could have changed the numbers around. I'm not saying that is what has happened, I'm saying is it reliable? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a good point, it really is and i have no idea to really prove that its reliable, as it was stated it is hard to find the ratings of theas episods so i am really not sure, do any of you have opinions about it. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - IN that point i would remove the source, so you agree with me. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It would probably be best to remove it then. Ω phois 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reception section says, "In 2009, IGN named Stewie's plan to freeze broccoli crops number 1 in their "Stewie's Top 10 Most Diobolical Evil Plans"." What episode is this referring to? Ωphois 23:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Episodes are supposed to be in quotes, not italics. Ωphois 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the lead reads, "The season received positive praise from critics, who called it "groundbreaking".[1] Critic Aaron Beierle felt that the season was "extremely witty and darkly hilarious", and was "unfortunately" canceled.[2] Season one contains some of the series' most acclaimed episodes, including "I Never Met the Dead Man" and "Brian: Portrait of a Dog".[1][3] The Volume One DVD box set was released in Region 2 on November 12, 2001 and in Region 1 on April 15, 2003. All seven of the season's episodes are included in the volume. The second season's twenty-one episodes were also included in the volume. The series has since been released in syndication."
- Pretty much only one source is used for the critical response. More opinions should be given, although it should be more general and not "So and so felt this way..."
  - I am looking for a quote of that. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - what refrence would that be. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - For one, you said that critics called the season "groundbreaking", but only cited one source for that. And the next sentence is about one specific critic (Aaron Beierle)'s opinion. The last sentence reads, "Season one contains some of the series' most acclaimed episodes, including..." This, too, just cites one source. You can't say that something is critically acclaimed based on one person's opinion. The lead's section on reception should be a general summary. Look through the reviews and find statements that are common to multiple critics. Ω phois 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~"The second season's twenty-one episodes were also included in the volume." should not be mentioned in the lead.~~
  - Done --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~What is your source that the season is now in syndication?~~ Ωphois 23:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- General statements in the lead such as "The season received praise from critics." do not need to be cited, as it is later cited in the reception section. You still have not provided any other references to support the claim that the two episodes in the lead are the "most acclaimed episodes". The reception part of the lead needs to be expanded. Ω phois 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, the comments by DVD Talk for a review of the first two season, and are aimed at the series itself. I don't feel this is relevant to the season 1 article. Ωphois 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is that better. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—a dead external link to http://www.campustimes.org/mike-henry-of-family-guy-talks-voices-gags-and-instinct-1.743902; no dab links. Ucucha 00:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. I'm copyediting per a request at WP:GOCE.

"however, both he and Brian are arrested by security guards": I'm not following, did he drop the money as planned? When was he arrested? - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's a weather device? Do you mean a device to control the weather? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"cardboard cutout near his head": do you mean in front of his face? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the power outage": I thought it was a cable outage. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"prompting Peter to run off with William Shatner": I'm guessing this is not a sexual liaison; can you rephrase? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"highly dangerous "toys",": the quote marks around "toys" mean that they weren't really toys; okay, what were they? - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They were toys but there where also knifes, poision, etc. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Peter attempts to make it up to her": what is she upset about, and what does she ask him to do? - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It says why he is upset, and it was his own idea. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Peter accidentally loses the reservation for Stewie's first birthday, and must create a new party.": I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Peter retrieves Meg before the rest of the cult members drink it.": I don't understand from this whether some, all or none of the cult members drank the punch. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"so that his friends can come to visit": can come or will come? What prohibits them from coming if he doesn't have a bar in the basement? - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
"until she is put to sing.": ? - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Peter becomes jealous so he invites their wives to drag them out": ? - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that whole section needs to be rewritten; I don't know what you're saying. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"As part of the planning process, the Family Guy writing staff collaborated on which ideas and characters to use for each episode.": Is there anything here that the reader couldn't guess for themselves?
"Diobolical": was the misspelling intentional? - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"however, during the court case, after Brian fails to please the court": I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best with most of the episode summaries but I don't know whether they will make sense to most readers; I'd appreciate it if another copyeditor could give them a whack. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your help did some fixes based on your commentes. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did enough work on this one that I'm not objective about the language, ~~and so I'm not comfortable supporting or opposing.~~ I believe it still needs some work, and it would be helpful if someone else could compare Pedro's last edit with my work. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose because of prose ... but we're close.~~ Pedro had solid responses to my comments about the first part of the article, and I went back and did Episodes 4-6, but Pedro reverted all my changes to Episode 7 and following, re-inserting a bunch of mistakes, and didn't respond to my comments on those bits. There's really not much left to do, but I can't do it since I'm getting reverted; could someone look at Episode 7 and following, please? - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did not meam to revert you, done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with Episode 7; nothing has changed below that, yet. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 04:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It wasn't done, but I finished it up. Striking my oppose; OTOH, since I was only looking at some of the prose issues, I can't support. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The infobox image gives it's FUR as "To illustrate a DVD release of the full season discussed, and identify the season in the article." That fails the non free criteria by a country mile. I even know where you copied it from—I've seen the exact wording before—and that article got through FAC with a deficient image review. Either rebuilding the FUR from the ground up or removal of the image is necessary.

Is that better. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better, though I'm not really certain any of these are justified. Before I nitpick the prose, can you answer my other question? Courcelles 05:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other image is fine.

Is the pilot part of this season or not? Some note somewhere regarding it's relationship with the rest of the episodes would be nice.

It is not really a season one episode since it has of my knolge only aired once and has been included on o9ther DVDs. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got lots more comments, but I'm so tired I'm barely seeing straight. More tomorrow. Courcelles 04:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have all previous reviewers been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question why does Family Guy (season 5) appear to be at a much higher standard? There is little description for the DVD release, and very little in the reception and production sections especially for the debuting season of the show. Nergaal (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I agree with you about the production and reception sections, I requested that the DVD section be reduced. Presenting every single minute detail is not necessary, and appears better when in prose. As well, upcoming MOS guidelines will require prose instead of a table. Ω phois 21:36, 29 September 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.