Talk:The Griffin Family History/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: —97198 (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC) The article is looking okay thus far but there are still a number of minor things to be fixed as well as a few bigger things. Untitled Griffin Family History[reply]

Introduction is too short - it should summarise every section in the article, so it should mention some aspects of Production and Cultural references (read WP:LEAD for further explanation)
The episode follows Peter's telling of the family history - kind of clumsy, could be reworded
where it is discovered that Peter's ancestor - "discovered" is probably the wrong word, "revealed" makes more sense
He, along with Quagdingo and Joe Mama prank the ship captain - should be a comma after "Joe Mama", "pranks"
he falls in love with the owners daughter - possessive "owner's"
After being discovered by his lovers father - ditto "lover's"
Meg is attempting to be raped by the burglars - might read better as "Meg is trying to persuade the burglars to rape her" to avoid some confusion
his ancestor, who was silent film star in the 1920s - shouldn't have a comma, "was a silent"
although annoying Adolf greatly - should be just "though" instead of "although" or reword to "although he annoyed Adolf greatly"
therefore saving their lives - reads better as "thus saving..."
During the DVD commentary, show creator Seth MacFarlane credits the color department of the production, commenting "[the color] is a lot richer than [the show] usually goes". - this makes no sense at all. What does he credit to them? By the way it's written, one would guess that the rich colors were the reason that parts of the episode were cut out.
although it was shortened for unknown reasons - as above for "although" (should be "though")
upon Carter discovering his daughter - should be "upon Carter's discovery of his daughter"
this scene is relevant to an actual argument - "relevant to" is completely the wrong word to use. Maybe say "this scene is drawn from an actual argument"?
Why is "Singin' in the Rain" in quotation marks? Should just be italicised.
The claim that the episode got "mixed reviews from critics" is completely unjustified. There are only two reviews given, which is far from enough to make a generalisation of the reception. Both reviews seem to be negative too (assuming that "so-so" equals not good) so if there was a generalisation that could be made, it would be "negative" not "mixed".
On the whole, I'm not sure that two reviews is enough to carry the critical side of Reception - re: WP:WIAGA #3, I'm not sure it is "broad in its coverage"

I'll place the GAN on hold so you have seven days to address the issues mentioned above. —97198 (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've noticed that you have several articles nominated at GAN. As you can see, there's a pretty big backlog there at the moment so it'd be great if you could review an article (or a few) yourself. Thanks —97198 (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did everthing above execpt increase reception for reason read below--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments i'll put my douts here--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.Two reviews is more than enoaugh for many GAs.

Though the reviews on the article are just each a quoted sentence. Sometimes two or three reviews can be enough, but only if they go in-depth. Ω phois 00:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

compared to other GAs it alright.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other GA's such as what? Ω phois 00:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, be aware that you're using the argument that other stuff exists, which is never really valid. Just because there are other GAs that maybe don't quite meet the criteria, doesn't mean this one should be allowed to slide. —97198 (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well takeing that aside TV squad and IGN are the most frecuent critics in our episodes, plus there is not that much recep i can find--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the reception section as it is now, I really don't think the article meets criterion #3 (broad in coverage), so I personally don't want to pass the article. If you strongly disagree, we can list the article for a second opinion at GAN and get another reviewer in for a look. —97198 (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well SO i do not think there are more rece but i'll try to expand from the present reviews--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could not find more and of my understandment if none more info is to be found there is not much to do, but iwill keep looking.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is not really any reception info out there, that may be an indicator that the episode lacks notability. That is my philosophy with the Supernatural articles, which is why I only make articles on episodes that have enough information available; otherwise, I group notable information into the season page. Looking at this article, it is basically just the plot, some cultural references and cultural references that were removed, and a couple sentences about reception. Ω phois 16:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats priducction and as i said many articals have this info and are notable as you said before 2 reviews are enough for articals.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production for me is usually episode origins, the writing process, problems with making the episode, etc. This is basically a list of deleted scenes. And I said sometimes two or three can be enough if they are in-depth enough, which is not the case with this article. As 97198 mentioned, you are using the other stuff exists argument. Ω phois 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now i'm useing that, that counts as production and that reception is notable.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The decision is ultimately up to 97198, but judging by the lack of production details, I'm having doubts as to whether this episode is even notable enough to have an article of its own. Ω phois 20:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have menciond this to you, you edit SN related articals real life episodes are completely diffrent from animated, plus if i may say you are very perfectionsit(from my opinion, from whactin some of your work).--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked on three random Simpsons GA, and all three of them have the types of details I mentioned. Just because the show is animated doesn't mean similar issues or processes don't occur behind the scenes. Ω phois 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are useing other stuff exists--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 22:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm showing how your argument is incorrect. You claimed that animated articles cannot reach proper standards because animation production is different, which the Simpsons articles disprove. As I said before, a lack of available details on the episode hints that the episode probably lacks notability. Ω phois 22:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets 97198 decide if it passes, fails, or SO as he is the nominator.--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 01:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ophois is right in suggesting that there could be a notability problem, but at the moment consensus is still very hazy about TV episodes' notability. This article has a fair amount of production information sourced to DVD commentaries and has been reviewed in a couple of third-party sources, so I don't think the article needs to go as far as deletion. But unfortunately I don't think it can be promoted to a GA - read WP:RGA ("Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria."). Sorry, but I'm going to close the GAN as a fail. —97198 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]