Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 2010: Difference between revisions
create |
fail 2 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Formula One polesitters/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 1)/archive1}} |
Revision as of 21:48, 1 October 2010
- 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 21:48, 1 October 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is close to the featured standard. NapHit (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Do I really need more coffee, or does this list not ever tell us what a "polesitter" actually is? Courcelles 16:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some comments...
- The opening graf goes into too much detail, I think. We don't need to know what 'formula' means. We don't need to know about the championship. Simply establish what Formula 1 is and why it's important (the first sentence accomplishes that).
- The next graf needs to make it clear that this is the current qualifying style. Maybe as simple as "Drivers currently have to compete..."
- Likewise, you say "previously a driver was only allowed a single lap", that wasn't always the case, the way this is written it sounds as if there have only been two systems. Don't specify one over the others, that's not really necessary. I would at least drop the sentence after 'previously' and expand the sentence to sound better, like maybe saying how long the current knockout system has been in place.
- You need to explain what pole position is (first row, in front) and why it's important.
- Telling us how many races have been won from pole out of the total number of races would be very useful in communicating the importance of pole.
- People probably won't be happy about using only bold to signify current drivers.
- There's a stray "USA" in the country column.
- Might want to add "=" to the ranks of tied drivers.
- You might want to populate the "Last Pole" column for the people with only one, so that it sorts properly.
- Personally, I think the Notes column should be changed to Sources. You aren't linking to footnotes.
- Speaking of the notes column... good lord. You don't need to 1) link to the same thing 80 times, especially 2) with 80 different references. Give us a single general reference and you can probably drop the entire column. Seriously. Anyone who isn't included in the general ref, just put a reference next to their name rather than devoting a column to it.
- I'm not sure the external links are necessary, as they have nothing specifically to do with pole positions. If people want to find a link to F1 or the FIA, they can go to their articles.
- Side note: Heh, until last weekend, Schumacher had a *50 pole* lead over Alonso. Just damn.
- As it is now, oppose. --Golbez (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I've had a go at these comments, think it's in better shape now. NapHit (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose from KV5
I was edit-conflicted in providing this review.
- The lead is supposed to be a summary of the list. You mention things in the lead, like driver age, which do not occur in the list, and things that are in the list, like active drivers, most poles, drivers to win championships, etc. are not in the lead.
- Do not use bold as an indicator in the table per MOS:BOLD, change to italics or use a symbol.
- "traditionally contest qualifying" - awkward wording
- "pole-position" - this should be pole position (remove hyphen) and link on first occurrence
- "contested by all the drivers" - how many is "all"? Is this 20 drivers or 2,000?
- "20 minutes session" should be 20-minute session, as this is a compound adjective
- "15 minutes session" - same
- 10 minute session" - same
- "seven slowest card" - eh?
- "Historically there have been a number of different qualifying systems, previously each driver was only allowed a single lap to set their qualifying time" - run-on sentence with grammar issues. Suggest the following:
- Historically, there have been a number of different qualifying systems; previously, each driver was only allowed a single lap to set his qualifying time.
- Additionally, if there were "a number of qualifying systems", then why is only one explained here?
- The "Notes" are not notes, but references. Change.
- The date at the top of the first list is sufficient; remove the second. Also, remove the unnecessary sentence fragment above the list by country.
All in all, there are too many problems with this list for me to consider supporting at this time. Once these are corrected, I can give a more detailed review. — KV5 • Talk • 16:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- addressed your comments KV5 NapHit (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment: Switching bold for italics doesn't fix a thing. --Golbez (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed it all to colours now, didn't realise you couldn't use italics either NapHit (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Golbez: How do you figure? MOS:BOLD says "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text." Whereas bold is specifically prohibited, italicization is not. — KV5 • Talk • 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, really? I was under the impression any text styling by itself was not allowed for accessibility purposes (i.e. signifying data solely through styling). It appears I was wrong, screenreaders seem aware of italics. So, uh, NapHit, sorry, but also, colors alone? Bad. :P The whole point of accessibility is not to rely on beautification alone, you have to have some symbol. But apparently italics counts? Huh. --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeh the colours have all got symbols next to them should have made that clearer, so I think the issue is sorted NapHit (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me either with italics or the symbols as is. — KV5 • Talk • 19:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears people don't re-read the guidelines that often. From MOS:BOLD: Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases: "Emphasis in tables" so bold is perfectly acceptable. Luckily. Sandman888 (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not being used for emphasis, it's being used to communicate information, which, I believe, goes against accessibility issues. (Also, what would be an example of this emphasis in tables?) --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An example of emphasis (or indicator) would be to denote top-scorers in bold in a list of players. In short, using bold is bad in articles but irrelevant in tables. And no, bold does not go against accessibility issues. Concerns of WP:BOLD stems from before the current "emphasis in tables" bit was added. Sandman888 (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hardly think this discussion was enough to support your addition to the MOS of "Emphasis in tables". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with Rambo. — KV5 • Talk • 21:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hardly think this discussion was enough to support your addition to the MOS of "Emphasis in tables". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An example of emphasis (or indicator) would be to denote top-scorers in bold in a list of players. In short, using bold is bad in articles but irrelevant in tables. And no, bold does not go against accessibility issues. Concerns of WP:BOLD stems from before the current "emphasis in tables" bit was added. Sandman888 (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not being used for emphasis, it's being used to communicate information, which, I believe, goes against accessibility issues. (Also, what would be an example of this emphasis in tables?) --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears people don't re-read the guidelines that often. From MOS:BOLD: Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases: "Emphasis in tables" so bold is perfectly acceptable. Luckily. Sandman888 (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me either with italics or the symbols as is. — KV5 • Talk • 19:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeh the colours have all got symbols next to them should have made that clearer, so I think the issue is sorted NapHit (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, really? I was under the impression any text styling by itself was not allowed for accessibility purposes (i.e. signifying data solely through styling). It appears I was wrong, screenreaders seem aware of italics. So, uh, NapHit, sorry, but also, colors alone? Bad. :P The whole point of accessibility is not to rely on beautification alone, you have to have some symbol. But apparently italics counts? Huh. --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Golbez: How do you figure? MOS:BOLD says "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text." Whereas bold is specifically prohibited, italicization is not. — KV5 • Talk • 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment
Sorting is knackered. Press the "Rank" button three times to see what I mean.Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Ouch; that was caused by my suggestion of adding "=". Now the Javascript doesn't realize it's a numeric field, so it's sorting alphabetically. Do you think they should take out the =, or go through and annoyingly add manual sorting to each cell? --Golbez (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Problems with Finnish names too. — KV5 • Talk • 20:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably manual sorting each cell. Sorry, I know that's not what you wanted to hear. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding the manual sort causes the figures with the "=" in it causes the template to link to the number I put in the sort function without including the "=", look at the diffs if you're not sure what I mean, any suggestions? Preferably I would like to do away with the "=" but what does everyone else think?. Finnish name problem is now fixed. NapHit (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is because that is how
{{sort}}
is designed (no links). You probably need{{Nts}}
; I don't think doing{{Ntsh}}
or <span style="display:none">...</span> for just the instances with = will work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]{{Ntsh}}
was the one I needed it's fixed now. NapHit (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Sorting is now fixed. Unfortunately I don't have time to review this in full so I'll just strike my comment. Best of luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is because that is how
comment
I think that the driver name should be in the first column as that is what the readers are after, not the nationality of the driver, it would look at lot better if they were swapped around.
- I don't think this is necessary, at the end of the day they can still sort by name it's not like it's inconvenient for the country to be in front of the name, plus I feel it does not look right to have the country after the name, for me it does not signify the nationality of the person as clear as the other way around. NapHit (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
also vettel is =23rd in the standings and montoya is also but has one more pole than him. error.
- Fixed this
oppose at the moment if these furfilled or good response will change to neutral or support.02blythed (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the country being first being in mind what you have said, therefore I support the nomination 02blythed (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFC |
---|
Comments from WFC
Hope those help. Regards, --WFC-- 00:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Further comments I should note that I am close to supporting.
- I've given the lead a mini-copyedit and done some reorganisation. Apart from my next bullet point, I'm happy that the lead now meets the FL criteria, but that is not to say that it cannot be improved further.
- I recognise that there's a hint of bias here, but something should be added to the lead to cover the "By nationality" section. I'll leave how it's done open-ended, but something is necessary so that the lead can be considered a summary of all major parts of the body.
- The general reference is only accurate up to the end of 2009. Is there a second reference that we can use that just covers 2010? At the start of next season we could then presumably remove the 2010 reference, and add an equivalent for 2011.
- On that note, any chance of restoring the Clark image to the aforementioned section? Moving Senna's image to the lead has really improved the presentation at the top, and on balance he belongs there. But taking Clark out altogether has left a really noticeable area of whitespace.
- Shamelessly off-topic. I noticed that you've had a look at {{Football season start}}. Would you like me to work on it over the coming days so that other clubs (such as Liverpool, or indeed foreign clubs) can make good use of it?
--WFC-- 11:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- drive-by: what does the country column signify? Sandman888 (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Country :) In F1 everyone represents the country of their passport (which is actually a very sensible criterion when you think about it). As with football there is the occasional controversy, but it's far better defined than football, as the FIA finds the nationality of the driver out directly from the driver, rather than us relying on completely external sources. --WFC-- 16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well in football we use the historical countries. West Germany for the first German perhaps? Sandman888 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Country :) In F1 everyone represents the country of their passport (which is actually a very sensible criterion when you think about it). As with football there is the occasional controversy, but it's far better defined than football, as the FIA finds the nationality of the driver out directly from the driver, rather than us relying on completely external sources. --WFC-- 16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now at least two more things should be added before this would be ok: 1) for very many years the pole winner got a point; mention it; 2) since it is said there is an advantage to being the pole winner, it should be listed exactly in how many of these times the pole winner ended up winning the race (i.e. add one more column). Nergaal (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I question whether sources would exist for that statistic. I may be wrong though. If it is done, it would need to be the number of wins from pole. An alternative statistic (one that I believe could be reliably sourced in the lead) would be the overall number of races won from pole, expressed in numbers and/or as a percentage of total races. --WFC-- 00:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; we don't need each driver's wins from pole, simply the overall statistic of how many polesitters have won their race. That's more telling than any individual rating. --Golbez (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was this taken from: List_of_Formula_One_driver_records#Double_.28pole_.26_win_in_same_race.29? Ignore the other one as I confused it with the fastest lap bonus given in the 50s. Nergaal (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This looks like it is good enough: http://www.statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote/divers/pole-victoire.aspx. Nergaal (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other things missing: explicitly stating the number of people that have achieved a pole position(93); Senna holds the record for consecutive poles (8 while Prost and Schumacher have 7; Mansell has the record in a year (14; Schumacher got poles in 13 consecutive years; six drivers got a pole in their first race; Senna and Schumacher have got 8 poles in a GP/circuit. Nergaal (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; we don't need each driver's wins from pole, simply the overall statistic of how many polesitters have won their race. That's more telling than any individual rating. --Golbez (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I question whether sources would exist for that statistic. I may be wrong though. If it is done, it would need to be the number of wins from pole. An alternative statistic (one that I believe could be reliably sourced in the lead) would be the overall number of races won from pole, expressed in numbers and/or as a percentage of total races. --WFC-- 00:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think you only need the first statistic the other ones are not as notable, added the number of polesitters and their wins I think that is sufficient. NapHit (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still opposing: essentially all my suggestions have been dismissed and since I put more work in finding those refs than the editors on dismissing my suggestions I won't bother expanding. Nergaal (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole point of wikipedia is to improve articles within a consensus, I'm not saying we have reached a consensus here, but to say you suggestions have been dismissed is ridiculous, they've been debated and reviewers have come to the conclusion that some should not be included, some were taken on board, for instance; the number of polesitters is now explicitly mentioned, so is how many times they have won from pole. These are the two most important statistics as they highlight the importance of pole position, I'm not sure the other statistics (although interesting) should be placed in the lead, bombarding the reader with a plethora of stats which are not exactly relevant to the table would not be right in my opinion. Thank you for the source as well, it has been a great help. NapHit (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"to determine the drivers positions on the starting grid." "drivers" → "drivers'". Subtle change, I know, but grammatically it's needed.
- Done
Remove comma after "at the end of which".
- Done
No need for two links to the 2010 Singapore Grand Prix in the lead.
- done
- What makes F1 complete a reliable source?
- Also, what makes StatsF1 reliable? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These two sources are the only ones I could find I think there fairly reliable they get updated often and the whole information is not available elsewhere unfortunately. NapHit (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 21:48, 1 October 2010 [2].
- Nominator(s): Pedro J. the rookie 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because i belive it meets the criteria, had a PR before nomination. Pedro J. the rookie 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- This is a very cursory review of the FLC candidate. I will try to review it further tomorrow.
- In "Brian: Portrait of a Dog"
- Link to dog show goes to an disamguous page. I suspect you intend Conformation show.
- Is it Brian or Brain? You have it spelled both ways for this episode.
- Both Done. Pedro J. the rookie 04:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are quite a few Checklink problems: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Family_Guy_(season_1) .
- Done. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looks like you caught most of these. One remains. Ref 43 Family Guy — Volume 1: DVD Review (info) [ign.com] http://dvd.ign.com/articles/390/390195p1.html redirects to http://uk.dvd.ign.com/articles/390/390195p1.html --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference 19: Is corrupt - "Template:Cite web".
--Dan Dassow (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- This article needs to be copy edited for run on sentences and excessive use of passive sentences. For instance:
- "His supportive wife Lois pleads for him not to drink; although Peter claims to comply with her request, he deliberately disobeys her at the party due to encouragement from Quagmire and their friend Cleveland Brown, and acquires a hangover." is an example of a run-on sentence. This sentence should be split into two sentences.
- "Family Guy was developed out of MacFarlane's thesis film The Life of Larry," is passive.
- "MacFarlane developed Family Guy out of his thesis film The Life of Larry," uses active voice.
- Information stated about one episode, does not need to be repeated for following episodes. For instance there is no need to repeat the information about why Peter lost his job in the description of the second episode.
- "Peter applies for welfare in order to support his family's well-being after losing his job
as Happy-Go-Lucky Toy Factory safety inspector via a hangover which he obtained at a stag party hosted by Quagmire."
- "Peter applies for welfare in order to support his family's well-being after losing his job
--Dan Dassow (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I belive the 3 of them are done. Pedro J. the rookie 21:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: What I had commented on before are examples that we should avoid: run-on sentences, excessive use of passive voice and repeating information. I believe these are the some of the writing issues that Rambo's Revenge is referencing. I will not have a time to do a copy edit on the article until this weekend. I intended to make you aware of problems in the interim. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I belive the 3 of them are done. Pedro J. the rookie 21:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
- Part I:
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
*
|
- Part II: The above was getting clunky and hard to follow so I'll start again.
I don't understand why a prod code needs more than one ref (three is ridiculus). Just choose the best for each.- If something isn't easy to find, removing it is not the right plan. It then fails 3a. Comprehesiveness.
- You have to nderstand that the episode is barley recognized, not even the season guide shows it as an episode it aired, and hen the first offical episode was the same plot bu a bit extended. --Pedro J. the rookie 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pilot episopde removed as it is not considerd a season episode. Pedro J. the rookie 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to nderstand that the episode is barley recognized, not even the season guide shows it as an episode it aired, and hen the first offical episode was the same plot bu a bit extended. --Pedro J. the rookie 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Float the picture in Development to the right. For me (quite a wide screen) it hangs down into the Production section and indents the new heading and text which looks odd.- Why have you removed the DVD table? If you look in my comments (now capped) I even found a cite for the Region 4 release. I suggest you use it.
- Reviewer Ophios commented that it should be changed and put on prose, at the end it is the same thing. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I requested that he replace the table with prose per upcoming MOS guidelines. Ωphois 23:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One way or another I think you should use the Region 4 release date I gave you. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I requested that he replace the table with prose per upcoming MOS guidelines. Ωphois 23:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewer Ophios commented that it should be changed and put on prose, at the end it is the same thing. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 50 doesn't give any ratings. According to the headers it % change. As for a rank of 33, that needs context. That is probably for prime time TV shows, you'd need to find out. If it was programs Super Bowl et al would be up there.
- Done. 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No ref for 40.2 rating in Super Bowl.- Removed as that information is not relavent to the artical. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"crops No.&nsbp;1 in "Stewie"- I'm concerned there are no reviews from the site. People may look back on a succesful series in a more favourable light. I think it is important to be completely WP:NPOV and have something from the time. There will have been something in print: Variety, USA Today or even local papers. Often archives on newspaper websites don't go back that far but LexisNexis or ProQuest go much further back and should be able to help.
- This will take its time but i will keep looking. --Pedro J. the rookie 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summaries need a good univolved run from a copyeditor (examples from first ep):"airline pilot friend Glenn Quagmire to" -> airline pilot friend, Glenn Quagmire, to"Although Peter claims to comply with her request, he deliberately disobeys her at the party due to encouragement from Quagmire and their friend Cleveland Brown, and acquires a hangover." missing comma. Believe it should be he deliberately disobeys her at the party' due to."his subsequent firing. After being fired for negligence,"while working as a Happy-Go-Lucky Toy Factory safety inspector- Will try to find a CE. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CE finished. Pedro J. the rookie 23:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Much happier now due to copyedit (thanks Dank). In future, though, please try to get this done before FLC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CE finished. Pedro J. the rookie 23:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will try to find a CE. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One more:
The FUR for the non-free image is not good enough. It is a boilerplate FUR for a film. If you read through it, there are many parts that don't make sense. These are supposed to be individual. Also, could you do the same for the image on the existing season FL.I know this is strictly out of the remit of this FLC, but featured work is often mimmicked and sometimes taken as gospel in how seasons should be structured so I think in that respect we have a responsibility here to set the correct example. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I think i fixed the first season image, i will do the FL later today. --Pedro J. the rookie 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Nomader (Talk) 05:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*I only had time to generally glance over the list, so this review unfortunately won't be too extensive. I'll try to come back and add more to it later.
|
- Once you've addressed these two other concerns and Rambo's concerns above, I'll be willing to support. Nomader (Talk) 01:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As soon as Rambos's responds to my comments and we can disscuss things i will finish his concerns. Pedro J. the rookie 03:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment by DragonZero
|
- And following the comments of Rambo, I'll be staying neutral until his suggestions are solved. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are redirects that need to be fixed like Cartoon Network (United States) which redirects to Cartoon Network, Larry shorts redirects to The Life of Larry and Larry & Steve and What a Cartoon! which redirects to The Cartoon Cartoon Show. JJ98 (Talk) 10:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Per upcoming MOS guidelines, DVD information should be presented in prose and not in tables.
- Why is the episode number column represented by "†"? It would make more sense for it to be "#" or "No."
- The production section says, "Season one also saw the introduction of several recurring characters, including Peter's employer Jonathan Weed, and police chief Joe Swanson." It is the first season, so of course characters will be introduced. Listing new characters is irrelevant to the production section unless production-related info is then provided.
What makes The TV Critic a reliable source?- In his "ABOUT" section you can see that at least major news networks in the UK consult with him. Pedro J. the rookie 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The final paragraph of the reception section is a mess and needs to be fixed. It reads, "The first season of Family Guy aired during the 1998–99 United States television season; the season premiere "Death Has a Shadow" aired after Super Bowl XXXIII on January 31, 1999 and achieved a total of 22.01 million viewers, attributed mostly to the large audience received by the Super Bowl, which it itself received a rating of 40.2 by Nielsen ratings, while the season finale "Brian: Portrait of a Dog" earned a total of 12.8 million viewers; the season finished with a ranking of 33 in the Nielsen ratings."
- I had to eliminate some information so i really not sure if i corrected it or just made it worst can you tell me. --Pedro J. the rookie 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That information has been changed alot so i do npt now if you still have a problem with it. Pedro J. the rookie 15:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had to eliminate some information so i really not sure if i corrected it or just made it worst can you tell me. --Pedro J. the rookie 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Development section is redundant, in my opinion. It is already present on the main page and the pilot episode's article. This list should cover elements more relevant to the season, not the series.- I would not think so but i will remove it if you insist. Pedro J. the rookie 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I say this because the development section covers the shaping of the series itself. This list is supposed to cover the makings of the season. Ωphois 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not think so but i will remove it if you insist. Pedro J. the rookie 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source for the release of the Region 4 DVD. I would suggest citing this. Although it doesn't have a release date, it at least verifies that it was released.Ωphois 06:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- The refs need to be cleaned up some. There is inconsistency in italicization, and some are just lower-case titles jumbled together. Ωphois 21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean that some titles like the TV critic is ictalized. Pedro J. the rookie 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. And IGN is italicized sometimes, and sometimes isn't italicized. The italicization of websites is not consistent, either. You italicized TV by the Numbers and IGN sometimes, but didn't do so for EzyDVD or Yahoo! TV. Ωphois 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleaned them up. Pedro J. the rookie 15:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still is inconsistent. Ωphois 03:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleaned them up. Pedro J. the rookie 15:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. And IGN is italicized sometimes, and sometimes isn't italicized. The italicization of websites is not consistent, either. You italicized TV by the Numbers and IGN sometimes, but didn't do so for EzyDVD or Yahoo! TV. Ωphois 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean that some titles like the TV critic is ictalized. Pedro J. the rookie 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a reliable source? Ωphois 21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is owned by Yahoo inc, GeoCities. --Pedro J. the rookie 23:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is a problem with Entertainment Weekly. It's the fact that you are trusting it is from. It is GeoCites userpage and "knifeman" (i.e. Joe Bloggs) is saying it is from EW. There is nothing stopping me uploading a similar page but if I wanted to be malicious I could have changed the numbers around. I'm not saying that is what has happened, I'm saying is it reliable? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good point, it really is and i have no idea to really prove that its reliable, as it was stated it is hard to find the ratings of theas episods so i am really not sure, do any of you have opinions about it. --Pedro J. the rookie 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IN that point i would remove the source, so you agree with me. Pedro J. the rookie 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would probably be best to remove it then. Ωphois 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IN that point i would remove the source, so you agree with me. Pedro J. the rookie 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is owned by Yahoo inc, GeoCities. --Pedro J. the rookie 23:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reception section says, "In 2009, IGN named Stewie's plan to freeze broccoli crops number 1 in their "Stewie's Top 10 Most Diobolical Evil Plans"." What episode is this referring to? Ωphois 23:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Pedro J. the rookie 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Episodes are supposed to be in quotes, not italics. Ωphois 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Pedro J. the rookie 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second paragraph of the lead reads, "The season received positive praise from critics, who called it "groundbreaking".[1] Critic Aaron Beierle felt that the season was "extremely witty and darkly hilarious", and was "unfortunately" canceled.[2] Season one contains some of the series' most acclaimed episodes, including "I Never Met the Dead Man" and "Brian: Portrait of a Dog".[1][3] The Volume One DVD box set was released in Region 2 on November 12, 2001 and in Region 1 on April 15, 2003. All seven of the season's episodes are included in the volume. The second season's twenty-one episodes were also included in the volume. The series has since been released in syndication."
- Pretty much only one source is used for the critical response. More opinions should be given, although it should be more general and not "So and so felt this way..."
- I am looking for a quote of that. Pedro J. the rookie 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what refrence would that be. --Pedro J. the rookie 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For one, you said that critics called the season "groundbreaking", but only cited one source for that. And the next sentence is about one specific critic (Aaron Beierle)'s opinion. The last sentence reads, "Season one contains some of the series' most acclaimed episodes, including..." This, too, just cites one source. You can't say that something is critically acclaimed based on one person's opinion. The lead's section on reception should be a general summary. Look through the reviews and find statements that are common to multiple critics. Ωphois 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The second season's twenty-one episodes were also included in the volume." should not be mentioned in the lead.What is your source that the season is now in syndication?Ωphois 23:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- General statements in the lead such as "The season received praise from critics." do not need to be cited, as it is later cited in the reception section. You still have not provided any other references to support the claim that the two episodes in the lead are the "most acclaimed episodes". The reception part of the lead needs to be expanded. Ωphois 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, the comments by DVD Talk for a review of the first two season, and are aimed at the series itself. I don't feel this is relevant to the season 1 article. Ωphois 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that better. Pedro J. the rookie 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much only one source is used for the critical response. More opinions should be given, although it should be more general and not "So and so felt this way..."
- Comment—a dead external link to http://www.campustimes.org/mike-henry-of-family-guy-talks-voices-gags-and-instinct-1.743902; no dab links. Ucucha 00:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions. I'm copyediting per a request at WP:GOCE.
- "however, both he and Brian are arrested by security guards": I'm not following, did he drop the money as planned? When was he arrested? - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's a weather device? Do you mean a device to control the weather? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "cardboard cutout near his head": do you mean in front of his face? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "the power outage": I thought it was a cable outage. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "prompting Peter to run off with William Shatner": I'm guessing this is not a sexual liaison; can you rephrase? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "highly dangerous "toys",": the quote marks around "toys" mean that they weren't really toys; okay, what were they? - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They were toys but there where also knifes, poision, etc. Pedro J. the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Peter attempts to make it up to her": what is she upset about, and what does she ask him to do? - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It says why he is upset, and it was his own idea. Pedro J. the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Peter accidentally loses the reservation for Stewie's first birthday, and must create a new party.": I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Peter retrieves Meg before the rest of the cult members drink it.": I don't understand from this whether some, all or none of the cult members drank the punch. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "so that his friends can come to visit": can come or will come? What prohibits them from coming if he doesn't have a bar in the basement? - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- "until she is put to sing.": ? - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Peter becomes jealous so he invites their wives to drag them out": ? - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that whole section needs to be rewritten; I don't know what you're saying. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "As part of the planning process, the Family Guy writing staff collaborated on which ideas and characters to use for each episode.": Is there anything here that the reader couldn't guess for themselves?
- "Diobolical": was the misspelling intentional? - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "however, during the court case, after Brian fails to please the court": I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done my best with most of the episode summaries but I don't know whether they will make sense to most readers; I'd appreciate it if another copyeditor could give them a whack. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your help did some fixes based on your commentes. --Pedro J. the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did enough work on this one that I'm not objective about the language,
and so I'm not comfortable supporting or opposing.I believe it still needs some work, and it would be helpful if someone else could compare Pedro's last edit with my work. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did enough work on this one that I'm not objective about the language,
- Thank you very much for your help did some fixes based on your commentes. --Pedro J. the rookie 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of prose ... but we're close. Pedro had solid responses to my comments about the first part of the article, and I went back and did Episodes 4-6, but Pedro reverted all my changes to Episode 7 and following, re-inserting a bunch of mistakes, and didn't respond to my comments on those bits. There's really not much left to do, but I can't do it since I'm getting reverted; could someone look at Episode 7 and following, please? - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did not meam to revert you, done. Pedro J. the rookie 17:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with Episode 7; nothing has changed below that, yet. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. the rookie 04:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't done, but I finished it up. Striking my oppose; OTOH, since I was only looking at some of the prose issues, I can't support. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. the rookie 04:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with Episode 7; nothing has changed below that, yet. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- The infobox image gives it's FUR as "To illustrate a DVD release of the full season discussed, and identify the season in the article." That fails the non free criteria by a country mile. I even know where you copied it from—I've seen the exact wording before—and that article got through FAC with a deficient image review. Either rebuilding the FUR from the ground up or removal of the image is necessary.
- Is that better. Pedro J. the rookie 00:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, though I'm not really certain any of these are justified. Before I nitpick the prose, can you answer my other question? Courcelles 05:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The other image is fine.
- Is the pilot part of this season or not? Some note somewhere regarding it's relationship with the rest of the episodes would be nice.
- It is not really a season one episode since it has of my knolge only aired once and has been included on o9ther DVDs. Pedro J. the rookie 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got lots more comments, but I'm so tired I'm barely seeing straight. More tomorrow. Courcelles 04:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have all previous reviewers been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question why does Family Guy (season 5) appear to be at a much higher standard? There is little description for the DVD release, and very little in the reception and production sections especially for the debuting season of the show. Nergaal (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I agree with you about the production and reception sections, I requested that the DVD section be reduced. Presenting every single minute detail is not necessary, and appears better when in prose. As well, upcoming MOS guidelines will require prose instead of a table. Ωphois 21:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.