Talk:420 (Family Guy)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. I'll give it a read through now and add points below as I see them. If theres any straight forward copyedits needed, I'll make them as I go through, but obviously if I inadvertently change something important, please feel free to revert. Miyagawa (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review: Plot: First line - is it possible to rephrase the second appearance of "friend" as it seems a bit repetitive.

Production: Could you re-work the first paragraph, and it comes over a bit like a list of the production crew with the line breaks removed.

Production: Second paragraph - seems set up at the end for a quote, but there isn't one.

Other than those points, I think its a job well done and very close to meeting the the GA standard. Nice work! Miyagawa (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look. I problems exist, please let me know. Railer-man (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Miyagawa; there are still some issues in the article that need to be adressed. For example, just by reading the Production section, I found the following:

Aside from mentioning the obligatory director and writer of the episode, the first paragraph in the Production section also mentions producers, supervising directors, co-executive producers etc. Remember, Wikipedia is not IMDB. Just listing executive producers and supervising directors etc is pretty redundant and doesn't add to the understanding as to how the episode was produced. Besides, the paragraph's source, Film.com, is a dead link.
The third paragraph is about the episode's DVD release. The DVD release of an episode should either be in its own section (titled Merchandising), or you could put it in Reception and rename the section to Release and Reception.
The last paragraph uses a dead link.

So, I'm sorry to say, the only paragraph in the section that holds up is the second, which has the DVD commentary as its source. Commentaries are usually valuable sources of information for episode articles, so I encourage you to listen to it again so you can write more in the Production section. Queenieacoustic (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception:
You need to explain the ratings (the first numbers) and shares (second numbers) of the Nielsen rating.
It seems a bit redundant to point out that the King of the Hill episode received a B, since you've already pointed out it tied with 420, which received a B. Also, the episode could use one more review. Queenieacoustic (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with the points raised by Queenieacoustic, those will need to be addressed as well - particulary the lack of real production information. If you take a look at other episode GA's, I'm sure you'll find a number of examples of what should be in there. Miyagawa (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find different sources for the Production section, but I kept on finding bad information, and some of the sites didn't even have information for the episodes cast and crew; the sites that did have cast and crew information had that of the entire series, which we don't want. I may need some reliable source examples. Other than that, I'm working hard on the other sections. Railer-man (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend you listen to the episode's DVD commentary, since it does mention several notable things, including how the whole cannabis song came together. If you don't have it, I could write you a transcript. Queenieacoustic (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the DVD, so the transcript would be good for me. Railer-man (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fail this article on it's Good Article Nomination for the time being and leave it to the editors involved above to work the article up and renominate at a suitable time. Miyagawa (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.