Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 5)/archive3

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 The Rambling Man 16:47, 4 May 2010 [1].

Family Guy (season 5)

Nominator(s): Gage (talk), Pedro J. ^{the rookie}

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it was perfectly ready the last time around, and the only reason it, to my understanding, did not pass was because of the lack of reviewers either stating their support or opposition to the nomination. I hope you will consider it again, and I hope to address your concerns as best as possible. Gage (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jujutacular ^T · C 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A link to Family Guy in the lead would be nice.
- Done. Gage (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a wide resolution monitor, the picture of David Goodman obstructs the list below.
- Done, moved the paragraph above critic's reception. Gage (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third paragraph of the lead repeats "Season five" three times. Make the wording a bit more interesting
- Done. Gage (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence of the production section: "The decision to end the fifth season before the 100th episode was made due to Fox executives' desire to show the Family Guy special hour-long Blue Harvest as the sixth season premiere, which was also then-unfinished, at the end of the fifth season in May 2007." Quite wordy. Possibly break into two sentences or cut it down.
- Fixed. Gage (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jujutacular ^T · C 18:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support As far as I can tell, all previous concerns have been rectified, as well as my concerns. Thanks for being so prompt! Jujutacular ^T · C 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This artical should have passed a time ago i support it. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as a co-nominator, your support is taken as read. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This list is very comprehensive and there doesn't seem to be any major problems with it. Good work! --haha169 (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments this is very good, I've reviewed it in detail before so, not surprisingly, very few things stood out, however:

The Key, you could just say "In the # column, the number refers to the order it aired during the entire series" and likewise for the Total.
- Done. Gage (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the production codes referenced?
- Done. Gage (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced you need to link wheelchair.
- Done. Gage (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 2 has IGN as a publisher and unlinked while ref 32 (for example) has IGN has a work and linked. Be consistent.
- Done. Gage (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 70 is a .co.uk link but you say it's published by the .com equivalent. Why?
- Fixed. Gage (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 62 and 63 - remove the capitalisation please.
- Done. Gage (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the info at ezydvd.com reliable?
- According to EzyDVD, the company is Australia's largest DVD retailer, so I doubt that it is not reliable. What causes you to call its reliability into question? Gage (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes buddytv.com a reliable source?
- Done, replaced references. Gage (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ This was a quick glance, and I am concerned at the misleading referencing. Ref 49 does not reference the production code in any way, neither does Ref 51 or 53 I guess this is a trend. As an aside, ref 11 and 12 are also the same.Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fixed. Not sure why a vote of opposition was neccessary, when I could've just as easilly fixed it had it been brought to my attention. And I'm not sure how refs 11 and 12 are misleading simply because it is not linked to a web article. Both are quotes from the Family Guy Volume 5 DVD commentary. Gage (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do I know it is easily fixed? Production codes have been problematic in the past (trust me I was on the receiving end). They are not always easy to verify which is a key criteria (hence the oppose). Aditionally, I recall the directors prefering opposes to comments as it is difficult to assess the importance of a see of comment if they haven't been struck/capped. For the second bit, I actually misread 11 and 12 thinking they were identical refs duplicated unnecessarily. Is it worth adding the |quote= field for these perhaps. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, thank you. As for the quotes, I think what is currently present on the article is sufficient. Gage (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

There is absolutely no mention of any type of viewer figures/ratings. In my experience this is exceeding rare for a season list. Personally, I would be in favour of viewing figures for each episode like some other featured seasons lists [2][3]. This information is available (e.g. http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=112106_06 9.3 million for Prick Up Your Ears] and the complete lack of viewership figures is the basis for this oppose.
- Attempting to locate viewership ratings as far back as September 10, 2006, I was unable to locate any information from a reliable source. Viewership ratings as far back as that, which was the premiere episode for the season in that instance, are very difficult to locate, and would mostly rely upon possibly unreliable sources. Also, I'm not sure how the ABC Media source you provided would be for the episode that aired on that date, as it aired on Fox in its original airing, not on ABC. Maybe it was a syndicated episode, but why ABC would show Fox's ratings would be beyond me. Gage (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Medianet just gives the weeks ratings for all primetime programs. It is reliable, goes back enough, and has been used for FOX shows before. I know because I've used it in a FOX season FL. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright, I have added viewership ratings information to the article. Thank you for providing me with that source, as I was able to also add that information to each of the season's episode articles. Gage (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rest looks good. Only other comment is on consistency: "Volume Five" (lead), "Volume 5" (caption), "volume 5" (reception). Can we have some consistency througout the article and the DVD release section please.
- Done. Gage (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose The referencing is underdeveloped.

- 2 has an author and date given
  - Done. Gage (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 6 has a date of publication
  - Done. Gage (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 7 and 8 do not give the proper publisher; both should have the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as the publisher.
  - Done. Gage (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 10 same problem as 2
  - Done. Gage (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 4 is dead; so is 23
  - Fixed 4, though 23 still works for me. Gage (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 1 needs filling out, too
  - Done. Gage (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "who cited an overuse of "one-joke" characters" Where does this come from? Direct quotes require a citation.
  - Done. Was unable to relocate the quote so I removed it. Cited the rest of the sentence. Gage (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Production for the fifth season began in 2005," That's not given in the source
  - Done. Gage (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check all the referencing, and I'll re-evaluate. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Take a look at refs 9, 10, 11, 16, and 17; the dates don't match the rest.
      - Done. Gage (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What are refs 65 and 66 supposed to look like? I'm not seeing any content when I pull them up?
      - I was not able to see them either, so I removed them, and left the third source. Gage (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the only problems left I see. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns handled. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

**Comments

- I think the reference of the dates should be in Month, Day, year to be consistent with the date format used in the article.
  - The dates in the reference section are formatted according to WP:REF/ES. Gage (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [[Family Guy (season 5)#Reception|mixed reception]] could just be [[#Reception|mixed reception]]
  - Done. Gage (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the "See also" section is really needed since it as a table that links to other things. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The See also section houses the Family Guy portal template, which was requested to be placed in that section in a previous review, as well as the Book template, neither of which belong elsewhere on the article, as neither are external links. Gage (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not much left to say. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:26, 3 May 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.