Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FA. Over the years I have developed the artical and a while ago it was copy edited. But before I nominate it I would like to get some feedback to see how I can improve the articale.

Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I can't stand Family Guy, but there are still a number of errors in the article, so this peer review has been closed. A\/\₉3r-(0la 22:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of a peer review is to discuss improvements of an article. Why, if there are errors in the article, would the discussion be closed instead of pointing out the errors so they can be fixed? Gage (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, CE is made to get feedback from editors and get consensus that the artical is ready for FAC or FLC. If it has any errors you should put them here so I can address them. Also your opinion about the show is irrelevant. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is over already. A\/\₉3r-(0la 00:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What gives you authority to close it? —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer The Simpsons over FG. Anyways, the peer review was closed because the "Family Guy" article may not meet portions of the GA criteria. Also the "SKL/LKS" article fails meet the GA criteria, and both articles should've been delisted from GA status I believe. All Wikipedia users will never get these two articles to GA or FA again. A\/\₉3r-(0la 00:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat again your opinion of the show is not relevant, important or anything of value. Not to make assumptions but does this have anything to do with you already having an artical for PR. Just to make my point the reasons to close a PR are: listings older than one month with no activity in the last two days, listings inactive for two weeks (semi-automated peer reviews do not count as activity), inappropriate listings, articles that have become featured article or featured list candidates, and nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed, and I believe none of those things have happened. So either give a good, valid, intelligent concern worth my and other contributors to the WP:FG's or just don't comment. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• There is a toolbox on this PR page which shows one dab link that needs to be fixed. It also finds several problem external links including some that are dead or forbidden now.
• Copying what I wrote in the previous peer review, "LEAD - I think I would put some indication of time in the first paragraph - began airing in 1999, currently in its eighth [ninth] season, something like that.
• The lead should be a summary of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see anything on the voice cast or on the lawsuits, for example.
• The last paragraph of the lead feels like too much detail / focus on the spinoffs and tie ins, not enough focus on the series itself (which is what the article is about).
• Most difficult criterion for most articles at FAC to meet is 1a, a professional level of English. Some examples of problems follow (not a complete list)
• First sentence of Origins does nto seem to match the rest of that section. MacFarlane initially conceived Family Guy in 1995 while studying animation at the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD).[1] He came up with a student film with characters that eventually developed into Peter and Brian. You could say something like "Family Guy can trace its roots back to 1995, when MacFarlane was studying animation at the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD).[1]
• Which is it - slow evolution into the current version While working on the series, the characters of Larry and his dog Steve slowly evolved into Peter and Brian.[3][6] or basically the same thing with different names for the dad and dog ...the difference between the first short, The Life of Larry, and Family Guy, was that "Life of Larry was shown primarily in my dorm room and Family Guy was shown after the Super Bowl."[5]
• Another part of FAC is making sure things are done consistently - is MADtv italicized or not, for example? Attention to detail helps make the path through FAC smoother.
• I would add specific years / dates here: Family Guy was originally pitched to Fox in the same year as King of the Hill, but the show was not bought until years later, when King of the Hill became successful.[7] Also the last phrase makes it sound as if the success of King of the Hill led to FOX picking up Family Guy - is that the case??
• The organization of the article is currently confused. I ownder if it would be clearer with a History section first. This could have the current Origin section, followed by the current Early history and cancellation section (perhaps call this First run and cancellation, maybe add the years in parentheses after?), then have the Cult success and revival section - again with years.
• I would then have the Production section. I would also try to tie production information into dates as much as possible (or perhaps relate it to the season number). For example the Executive producers section seems confused without dates, also not sure it should be the first section in Production. Would Writing, Voice cast, and then Executive producers make more sense as an order?
• Seems odd that there is nothing on writing in the last 3 years (after 2008)
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - some of the structural issues raised here might be resolved by looking at FAs on animated series.
• The Voice cast mentions a lot of characters, but the Characters section comes later in the article, so the reader does not necessarily know who the characters not already mentioned in the lead are (like Herbert)
• Would Lawsuits fit better in the Controversies section? Also seems odd that were the three lawsuits in less than a year and then no more since.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]