Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 5)/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 22:30, 17 November 2009 [1].

Family Guy (season 5)

Nominator(s): Gage (talk), Pedro J. ^{the rookie} and Qst (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. As a part of a project to improve Family Guy articles related to each season, I am nominating the season five list. I will try my best to make any improvements as they are brought up. Gage (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments

I think sentence one & two can be combined. You're stating the start and end date and the starting episode in one sentence and the ending episode in another sentence. I think it would be best to put it all in one sentence.
- Done. Gage (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Change the Region 1 wikilink to just link the word Region and not 1.~~
~~2nd paragraph in Production section needs at least one citation.~~
- Done. Gage (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ref 23 needs to be moved to the end of the paragraph since it encompasses all awards.~~
~~Might be worthwhile to work in a wikilink to 2006–07 United States network television schedule in the Ratings section so other editors can see what it was up against.~~
- Done. Gage (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Key makes reference to a second number in the # column, but I don't see any second numbers.~~

—NMajdan•talk 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support.—NMajdan•talk 22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Good raise 00:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

The licensing of the free images seems fine, but the fair-use rationals of the non-free images are inadequate. Frankly, I don't think the use of four DVD box covers can be justified, though I'd love to be proven wrong by some inspiring rationals. Good raise 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the rationales sufficient now? Gage (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Individually, yes. However, there's now three images that apparently serve the same purpose. How is that compliant with the "Minimal usage" required by Wikipedia:Non-free content? Good raise 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've removed one of the images. The other two serve there own purpose in identifying two different volumes. Gage (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If they have different purposes, then the fair-use rationals need to reflect that. (I really don't see how you could justify keeping both, but I like being wrong...) Good raise 22:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Removed per your request. Gage (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~What makes http://www.tv.com/family-guy/show/348/episode_guide.html?season=5&tag=season_dropdown;dropdown;4 a reliable source?~~
- To my knowledge, TV.com has not been deemed unreliable in other featured list reviews. I do not see how the information could be called into question. Gage (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not an answer to my question. Unless I know what makes a source reliable, I can't support a nomination that uses it. It's that simple. Good raise 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Replaced all TV.com references. Gage (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Internet Movie Database really shouldn't be used as a reference.~~
- Is there an actual consensus on this? Gage (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I'm not sure what you mean with an "actual consensus"... If you think that IMDb is reliable, then please tell me what makes it so. Good raise 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No i have seen many GAs, FAs and FLs that have imbd.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - They should not. Good raise
      - Removed all IMDb references. Gage (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~The references need some work in gerneral (adding publishers and the like).~~
- There is a publisher already listed for every reference in the article, unless I am misunderstanding you. Gage (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mind this... Good raise 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~What does that portal link do in the external links section?~~
- It is present in every Featured List in the Simpsons series, if you do not feel it should be there, be my guest and challenge its use in those such articles as well. Gage (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The name of this page isn't Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/every Featured List in the Simpsons series/archive1. Good raise 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've removed it from the section per your request, and moved it to the see also section. Gage (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good raise 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~What is the source of the airdates?~~
Why they must be refrenced.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the reader can verify them. Good raise 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now you will criticis what i will state but The simpsons articals do not have that plus why is it needed why would someone lie about the airdate.?--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The shortcomings of other featured lists are irrelevant to this FLC and the reason why the airdates have to be sourced is so that the reader can verify them. Good raise 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added refs. Gage (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~What makes http://www.planet-familyguy.com/pfg/episodes.php a reliable source?~~
It's not will fix .--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced ref. Gage (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good raise 22:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, I've not found the time to do a complete review of this list. The concerns I've found during my first review pass have all been addressed to my satisfaction. Image usage and alt text is within guidelines. The sources are mostly fine. (Didn't look too deep into them and there also have been several changes since I first reviewed, so I can't really say that they're OK. The general ref needs to be formated like a reference by the way.) My apologies, I've simply been too busy these past weeks. I'll have to remain neutral. Good raise 02:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

~~I may have missed it, but is the Family Guy article linked to somewhere in the lead?~~
- done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~"tiring," is that comma in the right place?~~
~~DVD release date in the infobox - can we use spaced en-dashes in preference to hyphens?~~
~~I may not have much of a clue but I would think the alt text ought to include the fact that the family are an animation, not like the Waltons for instance...~~
~~"the writing staff sought to create a character who would initiate an ongoing relationship with the character of Brian." can you prove this or is it opinion?~~
- Removed the sentence. Gage (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~"comprised of " normally no "of" after "comprised"..~~
- Not sure how removing "of" would make the sentence even make sense. Would it be better just to reword the sentences? Gage (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, just remove "of". Have a look at this for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, removed "of." Now that I look at it, I guess it does make sense. Sorry about the confusion, and thank you for pointing it out. Gage (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~"The choice to end t.." choice wasn't made, the decision was.~~
~~The massive quote from IGN could be considered copyright violation.~~
- Cut down the quote significantly.
~~"Smart House.com" - is this notable? Is someone from Smart House.com saying things that anyone cares about?~~
- Removed. Gage (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Put (PTC) after the first use.~~
~~Expand FCC before abbreviating it.~~
~~May 20-26 2007 - en-dash please.~~
~~"Quahog becomes succumb to a.." ok, but why not just "Quahog succumbs to a..."?~~
~~Who's Hartman? You don't introduce him, just use his surname expecting us to know who he is.~~
~~" a radio career" - a career in radio?~~
- Not sure why that statement was called in to question, but I reworded the sentence.
"Brian then begins his radio career, but is told to seek the aid of Stewie, after Stewie had made a prank call to Brian while he was on the air, much to Brian's annoyance" - one sentence, three "Brian"s and two "Stewie"s. Reword I think.
~~"as Peter is beginning to enjoy the situation" not clear why he would enjoy this particular situation...~~
~~"she demands for Peter and Lois to allow her to buy a car" - "she demands that Peter and Lois allow her..."~~
~~"reverend" or "Reverend"?~~
~~"how they've been" avoid contractions - they have.~~
~~"Colombia not being accessible for those in wheelchairs" - I imagine this is something made up in the show, so perhaps you need to quote it...~~
~~And you linked Iraq earlier, but not Colombia? Be consistent one way or the other.~~
- done
~~"it's empty" avoid contractions.~~
~~"Brian and him " - Brian and he?~~
- done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Link crack appropriately.~~
~~skin "peels" not "peals".~~
~~" did not get " change of tense, perhaps "does not.."~~
~~Who's Mort?~~
- done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~"and throws it up" - and vomits?~~
~~"mentally retarded," again just check the position of that comma..?~~
~~Chris's vs Lois' - be consistent.~~
~~DVD release section - the two paragraphs are copy-and-paste dullness. Can we spice up the prose a little?~~
And why are we talking about the season six DVDs in this season five article?
- The DVDs aren't entire seasons, the DVDs are Volumes. Five of the season 5 episodes are on the Volume 6 DVD, 13 are on the Volume 5 DVD. Gage (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I reworded that statement in the DVD release section. I see how you were confused now. Gage (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Set Details", "Release Dates", "Special Features", "Deleted/Extended Scenes", "Animatic/Storyboards" - all over-capitalised.~~
~~Date formats within the refs should be consistent, so all human-readable or all ISO, not a mixture of both.~~
~~What makes buzzsugar.com a RS?~~
- Replaced ref. Gage (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ophois (talk · contribs)

~~There are no citations for the DVD release dates.~~ Ophois (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Gage (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You just used the Region 1 citation for all regions. You need sources for all the dates. Also, the region 1 box just says "Region" instead of "Region 1".Ophois (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed. I removed the Region 2 and 4 dates because I was unable to locate any sources for any of those release dates, as I had simply taken the information from List of Family Guy DVDs, not knowing it was the only source of the information. Gage (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You can try Amazon.co.uk for region 2, and EzyDVD.com.au for region 4. Ophois (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you. I readded Region 2, as I was able to locate both DVD release dates on Amazon.co.uk, but I was unable to find a reference for the release dates for Region 4. Gage (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Weird. The Australian seasons seem to be split up different. Anyways, here is one. The release date is at the top. I guess you can search for the seasons that match up and make a note that the seasons are different. Ophois (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not see a date, other than a day marking the end of a sale. Gage (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "Price Reduction! Pre-Order Now - Available Wednesday, 25 November 2009". The DVD has not been released yet. Ophois (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, my apologies. I was under the impression it had already been released. Added to the article. Gage (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The volume 6 equivalent. Ophois (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Added. Gage (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I made an edit to the section for clarity. Check to see if it is okay. Ophois (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Looks good to me, thank you. Gage (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: the critical review section needs to be beefed up. It currently only has two reviewers. Speaking of which, I don't think Movie Web can be used as a reliable source for the review. From what I can tell, the "critic" is just a user of the website. Ophois (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly i have not found any more receptionb of the rntire seson.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried DVD reviews for the two volumes? If it is to be a featured list, it needs more reviews. Also, where do the production codes come from? Ophois (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to ask Gage about that, but why would there be a review on a 2 dvd?.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Season 5 DVD set. The episodes are split up weird. Ωphois 22:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, i do not now why they where taken of.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 11:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the SmartHouse review was a good addition, but again, the MovieWeb one is a user review and not one by an official person of the website. Try and find a couple more ones like SmartHouse or IGN. Ω phois 11:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done on the movieweb thing.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will search for reviews on DVD Talk. Phil Fry (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone addressed Ophois' comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO i am not sure how gage should but he has no comented--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put some reviws on there not much but theres not much more, what other concern s you have ophios.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section is my only remaining concern. As I said before, if this is to a featured list, IMO it needs to have more than just two reviews. I don't really know what is to be done in a situation like this. Ω phois 15:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theres more than 3 reviews like about.com, IGN, PTC, Smart house but i do not haave DVDs but i do not think there is more.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the added reviews just say "such and such episode were great", but did not explain why. I will speak to Dabomb87 about it. Ω phois 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it apparently can't be addressed, I'll leave it up to the director. Ω phois 16:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.