Talk:Road to Europe/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I actually saw this episode a few days ago, which is a lucky coincidence- I'm hardly FG's biggest fan.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
See below- I started to make a list, but it's clear that there are a lot of issues with the prose of this article. Just glancing down the article a little further, I noticed, for instance, a load of episode names without the necessary quote marks, and dablinks.

B. MoS compliance:
See above and below.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Of the eight sources cited, three look to be of very questionable reliability to me. I think I'd want to see a wider variety of sources for an article like this anyways.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
The non-free file is too big, and I'm not convinced it's the best illustration of the episode- they're not even in Europe there.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I am failing this article at this time, as I feel the shortcomings are a little much to be dealt with immediately. As a compromise, I am happy to review this straight away if it is renominated with the issues I have mentioned dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the FOX animated series" Why the styalised caps? "Fox" would be a little more encyclopedic.
"of Family Guy." Repetition
"British kids' show" A bit slangy
"a Kiss concert" Linky?
"much to Peter's humiliation." to Peter's embarassment would be a little more neutral. Also, can we have the characters linked?
"Quahog" Link?
"His dog Brian" I don't think describing Brian as Stewie's dog is that accurate
"but rather gets stuck on a plane" I actually saw this episode the other day- that's not really an accurate description of what happened.
"Brian needs a way to get back to the U.S. but Stewie refuses to go back and insists they go to Jolly Farm so to get transport they perform a musical number as a diversion in order to steal a camel, which dies from exhaustion later that night in the middle of the desert Brian and Stewie are forced to sleep in the camel only to learn there is a nearby hotel." Very convoluted sentence...

More examples, not listing everything now-

"of Germany history"
"United Kingdom flag" it's called the Union Flag, we have an article on it
"as other of Stewie and Brian's adventures"
"Rail transport in fiction" is hardly appropriate
"guest started"
All issues you had with the prose has been fixed expect for the rail transport which i do not understand. The images has been reduced, but it is one of the iconic to say so at least or a well known image of the episode plus that the IGN article also has this image with the episode. finally tell me a bit more in detail about the references. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rail transport category simply does not fit. This is not a piece of fiction about rail transport on the level of The Railway Children or Murder on the Orient Express- the fact there is a scene on a train doesn't mean the category is required. As for the sources, basically, I'm saying I don't see how they meet our guidelines on reliable sources. J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If i tell you why they are reliable would that help. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright IGN is a multimedia news and reviews website property of News Corporation. TV Guide is a North American weekly magazine about television programming, it page lists the contributions of Gene Simmons. film.com is property of RealNetworks is a provider of Internet media delivery software. Yahoo TV part of Yahoo which is reliable, the guide written by Steve Callaghan who is the present showrunner of the show. The rest have been replaced. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was the three you removed which I was concerned about. Now the article needs a solid copyedit, and a snoop around for some more sources would not go amiss. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I was hasty to fail this. I'll switch it around to put it on hold. Sorry if I seemed a little cold. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and do not worry and whats important is that you admiteded it and i respect you for that. Thank You. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what it needs its copy editing. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, currently there are real problems with the prose. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm gonna give it another read through.

Is it called "Jolly Farm Revue" or "Jolly Farm Review"?
Saw the episode and it was spelled Revue.
The hotel is a Holiday Inn or something wasn't? I seem to remember a joke about that.
Comfort Inn to be exact.
"They inadvertently travel to Amsterdam." Was it really inadvertent?
Done
"first Road to episode" Which was that?
Done
Inconsistency with how you refer to the Road to episodes throughout the article- quote marks or not?
"he left the show to create his own series, entitled Phineas and Ferb, a series which has since been nominated for three Emmy Awards" Getting off-topic. "he left the show to create his own series, Phineas and Ferb" would be enough.
Done.
"It was believed" By whom?
I am sorry but can you specify where this is
Production. ctrl+f will let you search the page on most browsers. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent dating styles in the references.
Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 12:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's simply not enough about the reception. I'm not happy with the only reception being that one mention in the list.
I would love to get more reception but there is no more i contacted a critic but said that it would take him two years and there are just no reliable reviews. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 12:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think I'm happy with promoting this with such little coverage of the reception. Did people involved say what they thought on blogs? Any mention of fan response on DVD commentaries? Dug up some TV Times type magazines from the time? There MUST be more. J Milburn (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright put a quote and a comment. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad, that's certainly helped. I'd personally still like to see more- we do have two opinions, but they're both from IGN. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i am trying to look but keep in mind that family guy's early seasons are note that recognized in reviews, but i will keep looking. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find anything on the episode only i just found reviews on seasons and the road to series, remember what i said it is hard to find reviews for theses its actually incredibly i was able to find the second reviewer's comment. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accept it may not be the easiest thing to find, but I strongly suspect that there is more out there. The article has improved, a lot, but it's right on the cusp now. I am going to seek a second opinion. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also note I made edits to the lead image's page and uploaded a smaller version, and did some moderately heavy copyediting. This still isn't quite there. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd review:

Assuming that changes in the main text do not cause changes in the lead, the lead needs to explain the main characters, e.g.:
- The family's little boy Stewie. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Their human-like dog Brian. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The plot summary confuses me. Stewie "sneaks aboard a transatlantic flight, intending to travel to London ..." "The Griffin's dog Brian tries to stop Stewie from leaving Rhode Island and follows him into a plane" suggests a different plane, but "The plane takes off, and they land in the Middle East" implies that they board the plane. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Section "Production" is poorly written, especially:
- "While series creators Seth MacFarlane and episode writer Palladino worked as executive producers". --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In "Povenmire directed "Road to Europe" and two other "Road to" episodes before he left the show to create his own series, entitled Phineas and Ferb" is about Povenmire and Phineas and Ferb, and should be removed as it not about "Road to Europe" and makes it appear that "The episodes are a parody of the seven Road to comedy films ..." is about Phineas and Ferb rather than about Road to Europe. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In section "Cultural references":
- "The episode makes several media references" and "Movies and music are also referenced in the episode" are superfluous, please remove them. The context makes it clear that the following sentences refer to Peanuts and KISS. --Philcha (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The episode also makes historical and geographical references" is superfluous, please remove it. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After so many examples of poor writing in 2 sections, I'd put the review on hold for a week and tell the nominator to check all the writing in the article - an article should be as good as it can be before the start of review. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to deal with some RL, but will be back into about an hour to look at other aspects of the article. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the Production section. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A third look

Prose is very poor in sections, e.g. This is the seconded episode of the "Road to" episodes...; The episode's plot, behind the scenes and other information was released; Cultural refrences section needs deleting, this is inconseqential trivia. A very thin set of references indicative of the fact that single episodes of cartoon programmes are not notable at all, howver much fans like them. Probably should be deleted under WP:EPISODE. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but I think there's to need to do it quickly. I'd look at the reviews, which are a very mixed set. --Philcha (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CR should not for the reason that the refrences are one of Family Guy's biggest hallmarks every episode has refrences, i have fixed most of the seconded review probleams and will continue to fix them. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion- failed

As per this request, I'm gonna make my decision. I am failing the article; looking through now, I can still see issues. Firstly, the review issue has not been remidied- I'd want to see more. Secondly, the prose is still very choppy in places- for instance "Recognizing an old classmate, Peter is shocked to discover it is actually Gene Simmons, without his makeup." It wasn't Peter, it was Lois, and the way you refer to the Road to episodes is still completely inconsistent. This is not ready for GA status, and it has been on hold for long enough. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]