Talk:Partial Terms of Endearment/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose suggestion. In the lead it says: "In "Partial Terms of Endearment", housewife Lois, after being approached by an old friend she knew while attending college, named Naomi, decides to become a surrogate mother, after Naomi reveals that she and her husband are unable to have children of their own." This would read better in several different ways. Here is one: "In "Partial Terms of Endearment", Lois is approached by Naomi, an old friend from college who asks her to become a surrogate mother after Naomi reveals that she and her husband are unable to conceive." There are a number of variations which would work.
Done. Gage (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose suggestion. In the lead it says: "This causes Lois to have to decide, along with her husband, Peter, whether to abort the baby, or wait for it to be born and put it up for adoption." This might read better: Lois and her husband Peter have to decide whether to abort the fetus, or carry it to term and give the baby up for adoption." Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gage (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Production and development section it says: "The Fox Broadcasting Company asserted their right whether or not to air the episode on their network, however, due to the controversial subject matter presented in the episode's main storyline, which MacFarlane acknowledged as "good enough for us," in deciding whether or not to produce the episode. I would fix this myself if I could figure out what it is supposed to mean. It looks like there is a word or two missing.
Ok, I fixed and rewrote this, but removed the "good enough for us" quote after reviewing the sources. It's not really that important. Viriditas (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
In the Cultural references section it says:"Peter lays down a series of Grey's Anatomy DVDs, in order to lure Lois into being punched in the stomach by a boxing glove attached to a crossbow, titled the "Acme Miscarriage Kit," operated by Peter. Peter ultimately ends up missing with the crossbow, however, causing the glove to bounce and hit a large rock, and land inches in front of him, as he is standing on a narrow cliff. The ground then drops out from underneath his feet, causing him to fall in a similar manner as presented in the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoon series Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner." However, the homage to Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner begins with the reference to the "Acme Miscarriage Kit" (Peter as Coyote) and becomes clear as Lois walks into the desert scene which is straight out of Road Runner (Lois as Road Runner). The text implies that the reference to the cartoon is at the end rather than at the beginning. The ground dropping out from underneath Peter's feet like the Coyote is also a textbook example of cartoon physics.
Done. Gage (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the reception section, The Mail on Sunday is called one of the United Kingdom's most conservative daily newspapers... Is this supported by the references? If it is not, is there a reason to keep it? My first reaction is that you are attempting to indirectly compare the conservative Fox reaction with The Mail on Sunday, which makes sense, but then again, you may just be describing their political slant. In any case, we don't want to go beyond the sources, so if this isn't directly supported in the context of the sources, we may want to consider some type of change. I think it could work if it was worded differently or restructured, but it may be best to remove it if the sources don't talk about it in that way.
After reading it for the third and fourth time, I removed it. Viriditas (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article has a bit of unnecessary detail in the lead, such as mentioning that the third season episode "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein" aired on Cartoon Network's adult-oriented block Adult Swim. While there is a point to be made here about how, unlike that controversial episode, this episode did not air on Adult Swim, the lead doesn't make that clear. It would be easier to rewrite this.
Done. Gage (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That works, but we shouldn't be going into so much detail over another episode in the lead section. That's why we have the "focused" criteria. There's got to be a way to mention the Weinstein episode in passing without saying as much about it in the lead as we do now. It's also clunky.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No neutrality problems that I can see at the moment, however, ending the article with the quote from Mary Elizabeth Williams of Salon could be construed as biased by a certain segment of the population. I don't see this as a huge issue, but I would recommend making an effort to end the article with prose rather than a quote so as not to appear as if one is taking one side or another, or a stand on the issue. This is only a suggestion and a recommendation, not a requirement.

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
It's not clear if the image of a march against abortion in France used in the article is the same or equivalent to the pro-life rally in the episode, or if this image is the best fit for this article. For the sake of this review, I'm going to assume that good editorial judgment was made to choose this particular image and it is appropriate unless evidence emerges otherwise.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I cleaned up some choppy prose and removed a few problematic items as noted above. Viriditas (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why it is stated this episode was aired on Fox in 2011 as of course it is still 2010, and it has not aired on Fox? I imagine someone wants to be the "first" to jump in with new information but this is more than a bit ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.215.115 (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]