Jump to content

Talk:A Hero Sits Next Door/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer:  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    • I had to remove the quick template because as I'm looking at the article I'm seeing too many issues. I could actually do an instant fail, based on the criteria, but I want to give the editors here the chance to adjust the page accordingly before I make any decision. I'll start from the top and go from there.
  1. Most obvious being the citation needed tag in the lead. There cannot be any cleanup tags in a GA article.
  • Done.
  1. You introduce the writers and director in the second paragraph, and the guest star is introduced in the second sentence. I would suggest visiting some FA episodes (see Category:FA-Class television articles) to see how other articles write up their lead paragraphs.
  1. "Mr. Weed introduces Guillermo, a ringer he hired to ensure the company’s victory, at the annual softball game." - Introduces him to whom?
  • Done.
  1. Assume the reader does not know who Peter is, or anyone else on the show. As such, you should say "Peter Griffin" the first instance and indicate "Peter's son", "Peter's daughter", etc. so that people know who they without needing to leave the page.
  • Done.
  1. Plot sections should not include quotes from the episode. We're not here to make the reader laugh, or act as a substitute for watching the show. This includes listing a quote and then identifying what it is referencing (especially when said reference is not sourced)
  • Done.
  1. Most the plot lacks transitions. It jumps from one statement to the next. If you remove the quotes you don't have a lot of explanation of what is actually going on in the episode. According to WP:MOSTV, you have upwards of 500 words to play with in the episode plot section. Use that limit to add more transitions. Again, I point toward other FA episodes for examples of how to write plot descriptions.
  1. "Production" - this appears to be a misnomer because there isn't any production related information really there. What I see is a list of crew members (the reader can get that from IMDb), a list of the guest stars (which appears in the lead and the infobox already), and info on the DVD box set for the season (this isn't directly related to the episode and thus really belongs on a season page). For episode articles that are animated, there probably won't be a lot of actual production info but you would expect some thoughts on writing, information on casting guest stars (e.g., why they chose this actor over another, what they were looking for in the voice, not simply who portrayed who), and maybe any complications...if there were any.
  1. "Cultural References" - First problem resides in the grammar. There are tons of missing words, lack of comma usage, inappropriate stoppage with periods when the sentence clearly goes on, etc. Then, there is the problem of presentation. The section does not discuss cultural references within the episode, it merely lists them. This forces the section to become more like trivia than relevant real world info. WP:MOSTV discourages trivia sections, and titling it "Cultural references" doesn't change what it is. What we need to know is what significance these references have beyond surface level jokes. This would require comments from the writers about those references.
  • That style of setction is on alomost every Family Guy episode article simpley becuase Family Guy´s humor really is alot of cultural refrences, the only way i see this to be fixed is if i elimanate the section, would you agree. --Pedro J. the rookie 09:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Reception" - The IGN review is good, but it is poorly written. It contains many grammatical mistakes (just like the ones in the C.R. section above). This section also needs more reviews. I'd at least like to see 3 reviews, one that was staight negative so give the section some balance. It's hard to say what critics thought of the episode if you only have one critic's opinion.
  • I can find you only one more review as the old family guy episodes are rarely revieed thouhg do you consider this a reliable source. [1]
  1. "Controversy" - This is under the reception section, but I do not understand why. There does not appear to be any controversy listed, just merely a statement of what was removed. To have controversy one must have people providing their negative opinion of said topic.
  • Done.
    • Not quite. You've simply removed the "Controversy" title, but the info is still sitting in "Reception" when it has nothing to do with reception. If anything it should be with the rest of the cultural references. Though, it would be nice to know why they pulled it (i.e., probably a DVD commentary thing).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Sources" - This is a major problem with the article. For instance, "When Brian makes a joke a laugh track begins to play referencing various sitcoms." - this is source by the IGN article, yet that IGN source does not say any such thing. The same goes for this: "Peter, Chris and Brian are watching the Wheel of Fortune. Peter has an idea for a toy that resembles a creature from Jurassic Park." - this is not backed by the IGN source either. I only checked 2 statements at random, so I suspect that there are others with the same problem.
  2. DVD Commentary - I assume that the commentary is on this episode, so I would rewatch the episode and write down everything they say. Typically you can get a lot of useful production info from commentaries, and info on why certain cultural references were used.
  • These were just the obvious issues that I saw. I'll leave this open for a week to see if anyone responds and starts to work on the episode. If it is clear that consistent effort is being made to work on the page after the 7 day mark then I will keep it open to allow for an extended time (but not for longer than 14 days). If after 7 days no one has addressed any issues, or made any effort to work on the page, then I reserve the right to close this nomination as "not promoted". The same is true if after 14 days the page still has issues, regardless of efforts to work on it. Any questions, I'll have this page watchlisted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, lots of improvements already. I'll re-read the article when you guys feel that you've "finished". I don't like to re-read as work is being done because it can change so frequently. On a side note, for cultural references or other info for this episode, I would try Google searching for specific key terms related to this episode (e.g., "Family Guy" and "A Hero Sits Next Door", or "Family Guy" and "John F. Kennedy") to see if you can find other sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then we're in a bit of a pickle right now, because without actual production info the page lacks the "broad coverage" necessary for GA status. The "Production" section currently is just a list of the crew who worked on the episode, information on the season DVD release that has nothing specifically to do with this episode, and then a list of the voice cast. The info about producing it a year in advance was almost there, but when I looked further into the source it wasn't speaking specifically about this episode but in general about the series. This page has basically no production info whatsoever. When I see this Family Guy page, I see production. What I see here is a page that literally copy and pastes the same production information across 6 episode articles. How those other articles were passed as GA when they all contain the same information is beyond me. That isn't production. It doesn't fit the definition. It's a cast/crew listing coupled with DVD release information (which definitely isn't production related, nor specifically about any one of these episodes).
      • The "Cultural References" section isn't exactly "references". Showing the book "The Art of War" isn't a reference to the book, it's a direct appearance. To make a cultural reference you need to say or do something that alludes to that topic. Showing Star Wars isn't a reference to the films, it's merely a blatant appearance of said topic. Another problem is with statements like this, "After Wonder Woman loses and takes off her clothes, homosexuality in the Batman franchise is referenced when Robin looks at Peter, instead of a naked Wonder Woman." - The source doesn't actually say that they are referencing homosexuality. Though, you and I know it because we know the cultural signifance of homosexuality in the Batman and Robin franchise, the fact remains that it's original research to say such without a source supporting it. All the source supports is the basic description of the events.
      • P.S. The TV Critic has a name. He isn't "The TV Critic", he's Robin Pierson of The TV Critic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree with your Cultural References point, but the rest you make a good point....so where does this leave us now? CTJF83 chat 00:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As far as the CR section goes, in the least the source not actually commenting on homsexuality is an issue. There has to be something out there as far as production info goes. I just don't feel comfortable promoting an article that fails the broad coverage aspect. Even if it was a paragraph of true production info, I'd be happy with that, but it really doesn't have that, at least not info specifically directed at this episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah it is leaving us in a tight spot here, cause without comenteris its pretty hard to have info on it, plus its an old episode and that makes it worst, death has a shadow has all that info, for abious reasons as its the pilot and it did i guess had comenteris, but is there any alternative Big. --Pedro J. the rookie 06:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Alternative to not passing it? It may need to be failed right now to provide for extended time, because I'm getting the feeling that it'll take quite a while to get the information necessary. I think if there is someone in the Family Guy WikiProject that has a LexisNexis account that would be great. That would give you access to newspapers across the country (really the world) where you could get either more critical response, or hopefully some commentary on the production of the episode. Other than that, it just might not be GA worthy. Sometimes topics are notable enough for coverage, but no one releases enough info about them for us to consider them as "comprehensive" or in this case even "broad". Another possibility is the purchase of the Family Guy official episode guide for seasons 1 - 3. Most episode guides contain behind-the-scenes info for just about every episode. I don't know about this one, as my experience has only been with the Smallville and Supernatural companions, but chances are good that this could be beneficial to this episode (and the rest of them across the board, whether through individual separation or through a generalized season article if early episodes didn't receive significant coverage from reviews). There are other books as well, though I don't know how specific they would be to any one episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.:::Alright iwill try to work a bit more on it, do not fail it yet. --Pedro J. the rookie 13:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And i was refering to what acutal production do you need the only thing i can think of is why it dose not have Death or Murder in its title, do ou consider that production, note i can also find what the actor that voices Joe thinks of the show. --Pedro J. the rookie 14:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also have to commente that the production section has been largely expanded, since the GAN started. --Pedro J. the rookie 15:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bignole, Google has that episode guide book, but it is very limited on its help...I'll have to keep looking. CTJF83 chat 16:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The info we got was just a coment on something we already was in the article so thats that. --Pedro J. the rookie 17:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production is what went into making the episode. Examples of that would be development of the story (e.g., what they were trying to say and how they wanted to say it), maybe an explanation for the change in name (i.e. lack of "murder" and "death") as that would consistute "story development". I don't see this page having or needing something on special effects. I included a link to the pilot episode's article because that production section is what you're looking for. Obviously, it doesn't have to be in such depth, because that's a comprehensive article and we're just looking for broad coverage, but it does show you the type of info needed for that section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We added the change of article but there is no info on DVD comenteries and on the season guide so what can we do, you said that if it had " Even if it was a paragraph of true production info" you would be happy and it has now it says that its the first episode not to have murder And we explain why and that is a paragraph of true production. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't info about this episode, it's about changes made to the first season. Even McFarlane's comments about the confusing nature of "Death" and "Murder" is directed at the episode titles in general and not about this episode. When I said "true production" I'm referred to something specifically directed to this episode. Right now, everything in that section is something that is already or can be (with the addition of the title stuff) placed in every episode article that follows this episode. There has to be info just for this page, because if you removed anything that was not directly pertaining to this episode then you'd basically have a blank production section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your probably half right, the episode is the firs one not to have murder in the title all previous episodes did, having that info and info on why it was taken of plus of my knowing the info was in the episodes page that makes it its production even if it is not episode spesific that is probably the most centric production you can find and you must already be aware, now the question is is the article have enough info on the production, the writers, the dvd realese the change of names the new charcter the guest stars enough to satisfy your criteria. --Pedro J. the rookie 20:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're scraping the bottom of the barrel, but you guys are trying hard. The DVD stuff is not production info and needs to either be scrapped completely (because it has nothing to do with this episode, but the release of the season on DVD), or moved somewhere else. Stuff to add, and then I'd probably be satisfied.
  1. "To hide the fact that Joe was in a wheelchair, the character was only shown from the waist up for most of the episode."
  2. "The writer (You can fill in his actual name) for this episode was Canadian, and he caused the producers to receive hate mail from Canadian viewers for a gag he wrote that stated 'Canada Sucks'".
This stuff came from the Episode Guide book that I mentioned.
P.S. I'll be going out of town Thursday morning, and will not return until Sunday evening. If you get work that stuff I provided into the production section (probably needs some decent transitionary prose) and get the non-production related stuff out of that section, do a quick copy edit over the article to make sure there are no glaring grammatical issues (corrected a couple myself when some of the changes were implemented), then I'll have no problem passing the article when I return. Cheers,  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Big. --Pedro J. the rookie 04:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also big the canadian thing is from another episode. --Pedro J. the rookie 04:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is the article looking. --Pedro J. the rookie 14:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't re-read the article yet, I just saw that basic dispute that was going on. I'll re-read when I get back into town on Sunday (I'm on a laptop right now, and I cannot stand to use them longer than few moments). Just keep re-reading the article and having people correct typos, grammatical issues, etc. Put the word out on the FG wikiproject for copy editors.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me the artical is done Big. Pedro J. the rookie 14:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed the article, but I don't like that there were still some obvious grammar issues and questions (which I tried to take care of). I did leave a hidden note in the plot section and the end of the reception section about a question I had which should be addressed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, i will takecare of that. --Pedro J. the rookie 21:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Hero_Sits_Next_Door/GA1&oldid=1136288094"