Jump to content

Talk:Baby Not on Board/GA2

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

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Ok, this article was listed as a GA yesterday, but I don't feel that the review was thorough enough. A very quick read over showed glaring problems with the prose including "Commented negatively on the Back to the Future references and the very similar Home Alone plotline."" I was extremely surprised to see the article passed in this state.

  1. It is reasonably well written.

I would suggest that in future the nominator gets a copyedit from someone who is more confident at writing English before nominating articles for GA. There were several silly little things, like lack of italics for titles, Peter's name not having a capital letter, a sentence ending in a comma. I've fixed the obvious things, but there are still some issues.

Plot

  • "When Chris asks Peter for personal advice concerning his testicles at the convenience store where he works, Peter threatens to sue the store for sexual harassment." - this could be explained better. Isn't Chris Peter's son? Why on earth would he be suing because his son asked him for advice?
  • Lois is a disambiguation page; I've fixed that.
  • I would also suggest saying who these people are in relation to each other, as I had to go to other articles to work out that Chris is Peter's son, and Lois is his wife.
  • "(actually, he left the car and returned to his crib while Lois and Peter were arguing over him taking tropical birds with him)" - this may not be necessary, unless you feel it's directly relevant to the plot
  • "They then call Cleveland and Quagmire to babysit him" - again, it would be helpful to know who these people are as until I clicked through to another article, I thought that they were calling Cleveland
  • See where intruders links to; I have removed the link altogether as it's a common word and doesn't need linking
  • Why on earth does "he chains them to the basement wall" link to hanging?
  • "Peter spends the last of their money they have with them for tickets on helium shower curtain rings. " - ok, I have no idea what's going on here; what are helium shower curtain rings? I think you can assume, by the way, that your reader will know shower curtain, and I don't think that linking to Annulus (mathematics) really helps (try clicking on "ring")
  • Plot Done.
  • Fixed.

Cultural references

  • I know it's difficult to do these sections, but this is basically just a list of things noticed and would benefit from the prose tying it together a bit more. the last paragraph of this section, for example, is just four sentences which bear no relevance to each other at all.
  • "A scene in the spa shows a scene from Ghost with Peter as the clay." - this is completely meaningless to anyone who hasn't seen Ghost; why would Peter be clay?
  • "Quagmire says that the only thing that doesn't turn him on is when people say "rubbish" instead of "garbage"" - how is this a cultural reference?
  • The WTC is awkward. A "reference to history"? "They" call it ground zero? The site is quite commonly known as Ground Zero. To be honest, I don't really see why this is worth mentioning here at all. You say that they go to the WTC site in the plot, and that they were planning to go to the grand canyon. What info is actually being added here?--BelovedFreak 18:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CRs Done.
  • Done.

Reception

  • "Commented negatively on the Back to the Future references and the very similar Home Alone plotline."" - I don't think this is part of the quote, and as a sentence, it doesn't make sense.
  • "But he did comment positively to some jokes such as the fight between Peter and Quagmire, Stewie capturing Quagmire and Cleveland and Stewie´s reaction to the magazine under Chris bed." - there are at least four two things wrong with this sentence.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
  • What makes thetvcritic.org a reliable source?
  • What makes channelguidemagblog a reliable source?
  • "a reference to the Rifleman's Creed (as recited most famously in Full Metal Jacket)" - who says that's the mos t famous recitation of the creed? Without a source, that's WP:OR
  1. It is broad in its coverage

Production

  • This first paragraph is basically a list of crew members. Writers and directors are relevant here, executive producers, executive story editors, supervising producers etc. are not. We're not IMDb.
  • Is there really no more background info available, it seems a bit thin on the ground. Isn't there a DVD commentary to draw from?
  • I have no DVDs but i am trying to find the info. --Pedro J. the rookie 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, you know... books, newspaper articles, magazine articles...? Anyone at the wikiproject that could help you? You only need to "address the main aspects" for GA, but I'm not convinced that the article does that at the moment.--BelovedFreak 18:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is stable.
  • No problems here
  1. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
  • No problems here.

Overall, as it stands, this does not meet the GA criteria. Some work needs to be done, so I'll let those that want to work on it do so and check back in a week. Let me know if you have any questions.--BelovedFreak 09:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BF thanks for re-reviewing the artical, and showing your atentio for wikipedia articals most of the things are done i am looking for more production, so wait on that but note for the futre FG and other animated series articals are a bit difficult to get production as they are mostly on DVDs. --Pedro J. the rookie 13:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting in the effort with this article, I know you're trying hard to improve it. Unfortunately, as far as the prose is concerned, you're adding errors with many of the changes you make. You really need to get the help of someone who speaks better English, and you need to be able to proofread it to avoid little mistakes like missing punctuation, and running words into each other.--BelovedFreak 18:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worjing on some of it fixed requests execpt the production already asked an editor to check DVds info, cannot promise much but again (and do not worry for this artical) that animated series episodes like thases are low on production easy to find its just a note if you ever review another FG artical or any other animated series, i am going to check up on the editor and remind him. Thanks again. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for the advice, but I have reviewed a Family Guy article before ("I Never Met the Dead Man"), and I see others that don't have a problem with a production or background section: eg. "Road to the Multiverse" and "North by North Quahog". Now, I realise that not every episode will have extensive source material to draw from, some will just not have received the same amount of attention. I am also aware that you don't need the level of detail provided in "North by North Quahog" to pass GA. But if you read some of these other articles (and I'm sure there are lots of good examples of Simpsons articles too), you'll see that it's not true that animated series episodes are "low on production". What we're looking for is information that people will want to read, not just a reiteration of cast and crew lists.--BelovedFreak 16:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not worry i do understand were you are coming from, and i understand, also thanks for reviewing and caring about those articals.--Pedro J. the rookie 18:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Pedro, but I can't "pass" the article (in this case, let it stay listed). The prose is still not great, and you don't seem to be aware of errors you introduce each time you have another go. You've undone some of the copyediting I did a few days ago. The production section has improved, so good job there. It would be good if you can find any secondary sources to add to that. I'm a little unsure about the information about the DVD release - that is sourced to an Australian website that is selling the Region 4 DVD; is it your intention to describe what's included on the Region 4 DVD? Anyway, I suggest you ask some one to look over the prose and hopefully it will be ready for another GA nomination soon.--BelovedFreak 16:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baby_Not_on_Board/GA2&oldid=1136543660"