The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:12, 8 September 2009 [1].

---

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 21:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/North by North Quahog/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. It just went through a Peer Review and an experienced copy-editor did a final lookover. Actually, that's it, thank you.--Music26/11 21:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Any chance that you can shoten the plot summary? You have over twenty words per minute. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you that the plot section is a little bit too long, though it doesn't break the Television WikiProject Style Guidelines. Maybe you can try some more, but this is the best I could do.--Music26/11 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done; thanks. Alt text has minor problems. It contains what appear to be sentences, but these needed to be punctuated and written with proper grammar. Eubulides (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Better now?--Music26/11 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, thanks, it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Looks good - profile image fair use rationale checks out (though it looks like a promo; if it is it's worth mention in the caption) and Gibson image checks out. I think it'd be good to mention the episode beat fellow Family Guy episode "PTV" for the Annie Award. Also, last ref doesn't support "the second Family Guy episode to be given this title after a repeat of season three's "And the Wiener Is..." in 2005." Please fix these. The Flash ^{talk} 00:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of your concerns.--Music26/11 09:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, looks good now, but is there any additional info from the commentary? I'd expect there'd be at least a little amount of such for production... The Flash ^{talk} 16:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I don't own the DVD set. Do you know anybody who does?--Music26/11 10:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, sorry. Does anybody in the FG WikiProject have it? I wasn't really asking you in particular, I was asking in general if the project had access. The Flash ^{talk} 15:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a note at the WikiProject's talk page.--Music26/11 20:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good, I'll leave my comment as is until then. The Flash ^{talk} 00:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I own the DVD that this episode is on. What information do you need, and how would it be citeable? Tezkag72 (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Great! Any information that isn't already in the article would be great. You can use the ((cite video)) template to cite it.--Music26/11 10:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a paragraph of the most important stuff from the commentary; the rest was just detailing the history of each individual joke. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fantastic. If the detailed info is useful for the cultural refs section you could maybe add it there, otherwise it is fine how it is now.--Music26/11 17:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) The cultural references section is big enough; if it had any more detailed information it would probably be considered cruft. Tezkag72 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. Thanks for your support.--Music26/11 21:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The article as a whole looks great, the best Family Guy article I've seen, meets all the criteria, could in time become part of a season four-based topic, yada yada yada... Tezkag72 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Great shape. The Flash ^{talk} 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Images: Two images total, one free and properly formatted/licensed, one non-free.
  • I don't see how File:Family Guy NBNQ.PNG meets WP:NFCC; the sequence isn't commented on at all in the article body and isn't doing much but showing an obvious connection; thus it doesn't meet the "significant"/"detriment" clauses of the content criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the image.--Music26/11 20:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.soundtrack.net/features/article/?id=144 a reliable source?

• The Family Guy composers were actually interviewed by Dan Goldwasser, one of SoundtrackNet's co-creators. I don't see how this is unreliable.--Music26/11 20:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• An interview is only as reliable as the person conducting the interview and the site/publication publishing it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are a few sources that cite the website: The Malaysia Star, The Chicago Tribune (partial), The Austin American-Statesman (partial), The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (partial, but if you do have access, this is an article that considers the website very reliable).

• I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suporrt This artical looks good to be a FA. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"broadcasted"?

"reruns on Adult Swim became Adult Swim's" repetitive

"and DVDs sold over three million copies."?

"The episode also contains many cultural references; in the opening sequence Peter lists 29 shows that were cancelled during the time Family Guy was off the air and says that if all those shows were to get cancelled, they might have a chance at returning." Sounds funny.

"Critics reacted mostly positive"?

I'm getting the feeling that a bit more copy editing is needed throughout. It's not bad by any means, but each paragraph seems to have an awkwardly worded sentence. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your comments.--Music26/11 11:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose barring prose improvement. I'm not going to list each sentence and how to improve it. The lead is OK after you addressed my comments, but the Plot section does not flow well. I imagine the following sections need work as well. You may need a copy edit from an uninvolved editor, or you may be able to fix it yourself. Anyways, I'm watching this page, so if you tell me if I should check it again. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section. There's a bit of repetitiveness and unnecessary words in it.

"When Lois yells out George Clooney's name while having sex with Peter, he discovers that she pretends he is someone else to maintain her interest." he she he her (trimmed a bit)

"and leave their anthropomorphic dog Brian to take care of their " their their (trimmed a bit)

"vodka that actually belongs" actually (removed)

"On their way to their vacation spot" their their (reworded)

" They are forced to spend all their honeymoon money on repairs and are about to head home when Peter finds out actor Mel Gibson has a personal suite at a luxurious hotel nearby." pretty long (put a comma in to break it up a little)

Second and third paragraph have the word "Peter" in them 14 times. (removed a few)

"they are spotted by two priests, Gibson's associates," colon or semi-colon (?? - no)

I'll read the last paragraph later.

The Production section is pretty good..

"MacFarlane believed the show's three year hiatus was good, because animated shows do not get hiatusus" awkward

• This has been re-worded by another user, is it good now, or is it the use of the word "hiatusus" that you find awkward.--Music26/11 17:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"did not "have the desire to make it any slicker" then it already was." than?

• Fixed.--Music26/11 17:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Walter Murphy, who had composed music for the show prior to its cancellation returned to compose the music for "North by North Quahog"." add a comma? (yes, done)

"As promotion for the show FOX organized four Family Guy Live! performances" sounds funny. (comma added there)

"It also showed previews" "It" is the the promotion? (actually works better in passive here)

I think a few tweaks can get the Production section up to snuff. That's it for now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've only glanced at the last section, but I feel comfortable with the prose now. A word here or there could be changed, but its personal preference, and doesn't effect the FA criteria. I just want to mention one thing. I write similar, small, pop-culture GA/FAs, and a lot of times the only thing when you start is a Plot section. For GA, I just check it for grammar and move on. With FA, I think most plot sections should be almost compeletely rewritten. No clue if that applies here, but it just reminded me of some of my GA/FA experiences. Anyways, great job. I'm very impressed with WP's coverage of animated TV shows. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(redent)Actually, I'm not liking the Reception section. My support will be coming soon. (sounds funny means I don't know the technical writing word for the problem). I'm really shooting from the hip, so if you don't agree, you can leave it and it won't effect my support.

"animated television show night" sounds funny

• done.--Music26/11 17:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The episode was led in by" passive voice or something

" 350th episode of The Simpsons and another episode of The Simpsons, and was followed by the pilot episode of MacFarlane's new show," repetitive and sounds funny

• Reworded.--Music26/11 17:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" The "North by North Quahog" ratings"?

• I don't know how that ended up there.--Music26/11 17:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

' The "North by North Quahog" ratings were Family Guy's highest ratings since the airing of the season one episode "Brian: Portrait of a Dog".[38] Family Guy was the week's highest-rated show among teens and men in the 18 to 34 demographic.[39] The episode was nominated for an Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program (for Programming Less Than One Hour).' doesn't flow well

• Yeah, but the awards part is too short for a seperate section.--Music26/11 17:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"However, the eventual recipient" all words needed?

• Removed "However".--Music26/11 17:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a jerk, and add a carrot to go with the stick, I like the following sentence (not the only one, just one that pleases my sense of writing for whatever reason). " In a simultaneous review of the two episodes of The Simpsons that preceded the episode and the American Dad! pilot, Chase Squires of the St. Petersburg Times stated that "North by North Quahog" "score[d] the highest".

• That's one of the sentences (by yours truly) that remained untouched throughout the full PR/FAC process, thanks.--Music26/11 17:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More in a bit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Critics reacted positive"ly?

'has not made the 'Family Guy' team that much more creative..."' should it be? 'has not made the 'Family Guy' team that much more creative".'

" hysterical characterizations" after the first two episodes." first two episodes of what?

That should be it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on FA crtieria. I echo the above user. There are redundancies throughout that need to be cut, and it's not a matter of grammatical accuracy as it is poor syntax. I'm also not sure The Daily Lobo meets FA criteria for high quality sources, and in a cursory search of my Proquest database I found many sources that could be used to improve the article, threform I dont think it meets well-researched criteria. Martin Raybourne (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted a copy-editor, in the meantime, if you've found refs that could help, you can mail them to me at pietjepuk93@live.nl. Thanks.--Music26/11 23:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have bundled a large group of references. I simply do not have the time to check every one for germane information and content, so you'll have to do the sorting yourself. My concerns about The Daily Lobo have not been addressed, and right now the content appears unaccessible[2]. Given what I've found I still dont believe the article meets the well researched critera. Martin Raybourne (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Expanded with sources you provided; removed lobo ref.--Music26/11 18:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay i have struck my oppose. Martin Raybourne (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning Support - I have given it a run-through copyedit and massaged the prose a bit. Nothing jumps out at me as a deal-breaker prose-wise now but I might be blinded to it now. If Peregrine and Martin have another readthrough and point out outstanding glitches we might be able to wrap this one up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - with one nitpick. ceranthor 11:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• These performances sold out, were attended by around 1,200 people each and took place in Los Angeles and New York.[9] - better as These performances, which took place in Los Angeles and New York, sold out and were attended by around 1,200 people each.

• Re-worded as proposed.--Music26/11 17:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overlinking: Please justify the linking of such items as "vodka", "cocaine" and "community service". (WP:OVERLINKING) Then I see "Australian" (very obscure), "crop-duster" (a, not an). Pipe to "the pilot episode", so people know it's not just the dictionary word, but this specific episode. The writing looks ok to me. Tony (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.--Music26/11 17:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm concerned that the plot summary is entirely unsourced. Are there any secondary sources that describe the plot, and that could be used here? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't generally use secondary sources for plot summaries, except for non obvious statements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right that it's not common practice to do so. On the other hand, it would definitely improve plot summaries if we cited what reliable secondary sources thought was relevant and salient about the plot. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't disagree, but I don't think it's required, even at the FA level. Opinions may differ, though, and I imagine the sources do exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If they exist, it would be best to use them. These kinds of sections are inevitably original research. I'm not sure why they're often given a free pass on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wondered if that's what you were thinking. In that case, I completely disagree, and that intrepretation has been rejected by the community. Summarizing a primary source or a secondary source leaves the same room for OR. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the copyedit is done, has anyone contact MartinRayborne to revisit? Do we have further clarification on his concerns over sourcing? Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just left him a note, I haven't received any e-mails yet. Though, in my experience, each FAC usually has one or two users opposing but are outnumbered.--Music26/11 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has just struck his oppose, it appears this FAC can be promoted.--Music26/11 15:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Who are Brian and Stewie, Chris and Meg, and what does this sentence mean? It's in the lead with no context, explanation.

• Meanwhile Brian and Stewie take care of Chris and Meg.

From reading further, one discovers something about children, but it's not clear in the lead who these people are or why they are mentioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand this sentence:

• in the opening sequence Peter lists 29 shows that were canceled by FOX during the time Family Guy was off the air and says that if all of those shows were to be canceled, they might have a chance at returning ...

He lists shows that were canceled and then says if they were to be canceled ... but they were canceled ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, who are Peter and Lois, and why are they unlinked in the lead, but linked in the article? Please provide some basic definitions of these characters so we don't have to try to figure who is watching someone's children. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared up.--Music26/11 15:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mean to be rude, but why hasn't this FAC been closed yet? What concern isn't fixed yet?--Music26/11 12:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FAC/ar (which was linked when you made the nom); this FAC was promoted yesterday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies for taking your time. And Booyahhhhhh:D.--Music26/11 17:27, 9 September 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.