Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 4)/archive2

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 promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Family Guy (season 4)

Nominator(s): 1989 (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel like this list is in good enough standing to become a FL. There was a peer review, and a former FL nomination regarding this list, and most of the problems have been addressed. 1989 (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Carbrera

Comments from Carbrera

For references mentioning "ABC Medianet" as the publication, ABC should only be linked on the very first source awhile the rest are unlinked

Same with "Annie Awards" references

Reference #2, 23, 25, 33, 34, 52, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 - Date should be consistent with the rest of the citations

That's what I got for now. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera: Done -- 1989 (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at it tomorrow and give more thoughts. Thanks for the rapid responses. Carbrera (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Support – Good look in getting it promoted. Carbrera (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba47

I would suggest adding ALT descriptions for the two images in the infobox.
Reference 1 is dead and needs to be archived. Same goes for Reference 9 and 18 and 42 and 57 through 65. The external link is also dead.
I do not understand the need for the “List of Family Guy episodes” in the “See also” section when you already have a link for this in a previous section. I would eliminate the “See also” section completely to avoid repetition unless you can find other things to put there instead.
Avoid saying “bitterly” in such close proximity in the last paragraph of the “Reception” section. I would change one instance for variety.
Some phrases in the episode summaries sound a little awkward and should be revised or removed, such as “Thus returning life back to normal.” I would look careful through the episode summaries for any awkward language or sentence construction.

@1989: Overall, the list looks very good and once my comments are addressed, I will look through it again and support it. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Done. However, I couldn't find an archive link for Reference 9. I don't know if I should remove it or not. -- 1989 (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: Thank you for the response. I would suggest removing Reference and possibly replacing it if you find a similar source. A featured list should not have any dead links. Once this is addressed, then I will look over this again and most likely support this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: ~~I removed the whole sentence with the reference for now. If I can find something else, I'll re-add it.~~ Done -- 1989 (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the reception section is a little bit longer, I would suggest adding some subsections, as done in Lost (season 3), to provide some guidance for a reader and give this section a little more structure. This is more of a suggestion so I understand if you would prefer not to add this. This is the only note that I have left for this before I support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Done -- 1989 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job with the list and good luck with getting it promoted in the future! If possible, could you look at my similar FLC for Private Practice (season 1). I understand if you do not have the time or interest to do this as it is a busy time of the year. Aoba47 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose

Many of the plot summaries need revising:

"sexy" from "Brian's sexy replacement teacher" is a blatantly biased description, even if Chris finds her sexy
"His ambitions, however, ultimately cost him" is a bit clunky; try putting "however" at the beginning of this part
"Meg becomes extremely attractive" as well as "Meg's new attractiveness and talented singing voice" are also obvious POV statements
Not sure about the tone of "badly" in "he can not kill another human being, even though he hurt him badly"
"which is a parody and complete reference to the ending of Rocky III" is too much here; it's better for the episodes to contain details on cultural references
"he's" in "he's a genius" should be "he is" per WP:CONTRACTIONS
"Peter gets depressed at first, but realizes that, now he is retarded, he can get away with a lot of things" could read better; try something like "While Peter is initially depressed, he observes that people more easily forgive his actions when he states he is retarded"
"beautiful" in "his new, beautiful babysitter" is not a neutral description
"She is, of course, overjoyed to see Peter safe when they are saved by a cruise ship, but is torn" is a bit wordy, and "of course" isn't appropriate tone; try "While Lois is overjoyed when she learns Peter is alive, she is torn"
"puts Lois into having sex" reads awkwardly
"thus putting the show back in its original setting" is overkill
"it's" in "When it's revealed" should be "it is" per WP:CONTRACTIONS
"But, Peter's attitude forces Tom" is a fragment. None of the words from "FANBOYS" (For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So) should be used to start sentences.
"sissy" and "wimpish" in "sissy, wimpish English football team" are not appropriate tone at all
"Quagmire actually falls in love with a maid whose service Peter won on a game show, and even marries her, changing Quagmire's personality" → "Quagmire's personality changes after he falls in love with and marries a maid whose service Peter won on a game show"
"But when the old Quagmire returns" → "However, after his old personality returns"
"puts a kibosh on"..... ends; this isn't the place for slang
"spices things up"..... again, avoid slang, maybe say it restores or revives their sex life
"equally-malicious" is needless, even if Bertram had a similar personality to Stewie
"Brian tries to expose Mayor West as the corrupt politician he is"..... a more neutral way to say this would be "Brian tries to convince others that Mayor West is corrupt" per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
"start smoking pot"..... marijuana; please remember not to use slang in a professional encyclopedia
"ridiculous moments" is more blatant bias
"feel up a girl"..... again, please avoid slang
Again, cultural references are better for episode articles, so I'd remove "In a parody of the film Poltergeist,"
Not too sure about the use of "followed by even stranger events"
Let's improve the tone of "their equally exotic and dysfunctional ancestry" by just saying "their ancestry"

Citations could be better:

Toronto Sun isn't exactly the best of sources
"SoundtrackNet" → Soundtrack.Net
"ABC Medianet" → "ABC"
I'm sure you can find something better than Fox News
Don't italicize United Press International
Publications should only be linked in the first ref they are used (i.e. just link USA Today in ref#5, and ABC in ref#16)
The Heights is a student paper, which tends not to be as professional as other organizations, so let's try to find something better

This is certainly not FL quality at the moment, but I don't think it's beyond repair. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Done Thanks so much for bringing this to my attention. Hope you can reconsider. -- 1989 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huge improvement! I made some minor tweaks, and now can support this nomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Clarification about Requesting a Source Review

I would recommend adding this article to the list for a request for a source review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47: Please clarify. -- 1989 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Before a list can be passed as a featured list, a user will have to provide a source review. A source review is when a user goes through the references of an article or list (in this case a list) to make sure that was not any close paraphrasing and to make sure all of the information cited with a source can actually be found in the source. If you look near the top of the FLC main page, you will see a box that says "Source reviews needed" and you add your article to that list. You only add your article to that list when your FLC has three "support" votes or more as that space is reserved for FLCs that are near completion. And before you ask me, I will be unable to provide a source review for this as it is preferred to get a new pair of eyes on this for that process. Let me know if you need further clarification on this. I could add this to the list if you would prefer since you are new to the process. Aoba47 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Done -- 1989 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Any reason why " the Volume Three DVD box set" Volume Three, Volume Four is capitalised?
"confusion over season numbers between U.S., Australian, and UK fans" not keen on "fans" here, why not just consumers?
" than 3 million" three, etc.
"In 2002, Family Guy was canceled after three seasons due to low ratings.[1] The show was first canceled after the 1999–2000 season" this is confusing and seemingly out of chronological order.
"canceling " vs "cancellation" - consistent ENGVAR.
No need to link "having sex".
Or "heart attack" or "sexual intercourse".
Or "boiling oil" or "boxing ring". These are all common terms to English language speakers and readers.
Yet you decline to link "kleptonmaniacal"!
Episode 15 should be 9.20 million (consistent decimal places).
Why no viewership data for episode 19?
"Frank Sinatra Jr. ⋅" no comma.
Episode plot description lengths start large and gradually get smaller and smaller. I would work on balancing them out, probably by trimming down some of the earlier ones.
" Popmatters " seems to be PopMatters.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I expanded the short summaries to a reasonable size. I plan to copyedit them later.~~ -- MCMLXXXIX 21:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Done Let me know if you have still have concerns. -- MCMLXXXIX 23:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Wehwalt

Source review I've done this mostly for FAC so if I'm off base on anything, please bear with me. All sources seem of appropriate quality and are consistently cited. I note the following.

Per MOS:TITLE, short works such as articles and webpages should be consistently capitalized. Refs 29, 55 seem especially odd here.
Cannot accessdates, especially where not archived ,be updated from 2009?
Why is it necessary to put "Staff" as the author of 44, 46, 47?
On ref 12, "Family Guy: Volume Three: Commentary for "North by North Quahog"" Is there someplace where this title is spelled out in this manner? If you are simply describing it, then the italics (other than for the series title) are probably not justified.
I only glanced at the prose but why is Deceased Indian Chief capitalized like that?
I'll give another run through once this is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Please claify what you meant at bullet point 2, and on bullet point 4, the title is italics because the template {{cite AV media}} automatically does it. MCMLXXXIX 22:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that accessdates from 2009 make the article look outdated, as if it hasn't been worked on but for polishing since 2009. A reader thus may discount what is said then. But it's main purpose is to say that on such-and-such a date, the webpage was still working and still said what the article says it did. While I will do spot checks, I don't plan on looking at every source. Remember, you by bringing it here say the list abides by WP:V. One way of avoiding doing this in a rush is to update the accessdate as you go through the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Done MCMLXXXIX 20:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done what? They still show 2009. I'm suggesting you check each one and update the accessdate, assuming it still says what you think it should.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Bullet Point 4, is that the actual title, or is that a description?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: I don't know if you haven't noticed, but I updated the accessdates on the ones without the archivelink parameter. I guess you wanted me to do it on those ones as well. I updated them. Part of the title is the actual title, but where it says the North by North thing is the description. I fixed that one as well. MCMLXXXIX 11:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly I loaded an old version. Thanks, great.

Spot check

Ref 5 supports the text.
Ref 15 you give 9.20 million but the source, if rounded, is 9.21 million. (9260 thousand)
Ref 25 supports the text.
Ref 35 supports the text.
Ref 45 supports the text
Ref 55 is offline, so instead: Ref 54 supports the text.
Ref 62 supports the text.

Done @Wehwalt: I fixed the issue in bullet 2. MCMLXXXIX 15:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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