 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hello! Just a remark on the seventh point of the cultural references: You say that Jefferson Airplane's song "White Rabbit" is played as background music. I think it would be save to say that this is a "Platoon" reference. The song is also played in this movie and both the movie and this episode have a vietnam war theme.
- Not unless there's reliable sourcing establishing that the reference is intentional. For that matter, nothing else in that section is currently sourced. Doniago (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Umm, hello, "Hell is a possibility of sanity" monologue much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.237.253 (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of needing reliable sources...
editWhat is the basis for concluding that Roger was on an "acid trip"? For all we know, he was simply overwhelmed by the combination of the Ortolan and Barbara doing Celine; that is, his prefect evening actually came together and he reached some sort of ecstatic state.172.190.218.59 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thought I would mention, though, that the article is much better now than when someone simply made the assumption that Hayley drugged Roger, causing the "trip". In any event, why is IGN used as the arbiter of whether or not an episode is good?172.190.218.59 (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say IGN is really being used as an arbiter of anything. It's just a review in the Reception section. Including other reviews would improve the quality of the article. Doniago (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Used as an arbiter, no, but because IGN reviews seem to be included for most all of the American Dad episode pages with no countervailing (or corroborating, for that matter) "sources", they are likely to be taken as a sort of de facto qualitative measurement of an episode's worth, if that makes any sense. I know that most movie pages have reception sections, too, but IGN isn't exactly the television equivalent of, say, a Roger Ebert. For something that is putatively encyclopedic, should we really include the ruminations of some random hipster jackass for every episode of a television show? Regardless of any of that, it still wasn't an acid trip. Hallucination, you bet.172.191.0.170 (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose the question that should be asked is whether that's the fault of us for only including one review, or the reader for assuming the review has more value than it does. Are you proposing that we shouldn't include IGN reviews if they are the only reviews available? You also seem to be suggesting that IGN reviews don't qualify as notable...I don't know whether there's a consensus on that either way; it may be a matter for a noticeboard. I hope I don't sound combative, I certainly agree that only having one review of anything is a poor approach; I'm just not sure what the best solution (other than providing additional reviews) is. Doniago (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, you haven't been combative in the least and I hope I haven't come across that way, either, as it was not really my intent. It was just my two cents worth on the matter. I guess my problem is that the IGN reviews generally are the only reviews presented for a given episode (unless an episode drew the ire of some media watchdog group) and they are thus given a weight that I doubt they deserve. I understand the impulse to add whatever content is available and can possibly be sourced, I just don't know why IGN's opinions should be held to matter. I'm not really proposing that the reviews be removed (though I think they should), I'm just curious about the rationale for including them.172.190.129.162 (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- You haven't come across as combative. (smile) As far as why the IGN reviews were included, your best course would probably be to contact the specific editor(s) who added them. I think it's definitely good to have a reception section, but only having one review I'll agree tends to give that review a possibly undue degree of weight. Perhaps there's another review site that could be used to provide a second opinion? I'd much rather see additional reviews added than the sole review provided removed. As this is impacting all episodes rather than this particular episode, you might wish to consider bringing this up on the discussion page for whatever projects this falls under as well; I don't know whether you'd rather copy this discussion (you have my permission to copy my comments) or just link here. Doniago (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I certainly appreciate your time and patience, but I'll leave any major editing or policy decisions to more dedicated Wikipedians than myself. I agree that, in a perfect world, there would be three or four solid, reliable sources of reviews for episodes, but I fear that the only reason the IGN reviews are included is because they are available in the absence of anything else. That's the heart of my objection, but it is a minor objection and I am largely satisfied with the American Dad articles that I have seen. So, like I said, I put in my two cents, raised my objections, but if people see value in the reviews, I'm more than happy to shut up about it.172.190.253.167 (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- You haven't come across as combative. (smile) As far as why the IGN reviews were included, your best course would probably be to contact the specific editor(s) who added them. I think it's definitely good to have a reception section, but only having one review I'll agree tends to give that review a possibly undue degree of weight. Perhaps there's another review site that could be used to provide a second opinion? I'd much rather see additional reviews added than the sole review provided removed. As this is impacting all episodes rather than this particular episode, you might wish to consider bringing this up on the discussion page for whatever projects this falls under as well; I don't know whether you'd rather copy this discussion (you have my permission to copy my comments) or just link here. Doniago (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, you haven't been combative in the least and I hope I haven't come across that way, either, as it was not really my intent. It was just my two cents worth on the matter. I guess my problem is that the IGN reviews generally are the only reviews presented for a given episode (unless an episode drew the ire of some media watchdog group) and they are thus given a weight that I doubt they deserve. I understand the impulse to add whatever content is available and can possibly be sourced, I just don't know why IGN's opinions should be held to matter. I'm not really proposing that the reviews be removed (though I think they should), I'm just curious about the rationale for including them.172.190.129.162 (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose the question that should be asked is whether that's the fault of us for only including one review, or the reader for assuming the review has more value than it does. Are you proposing that we shouldn't include IGN reviews if they are the only reviews available? You also seem to be suggesting that IGN reviews don't qualify as notable...I don't know whether there's a consensus on that either way; it may be a matter for a noticeboard. I hope I don't sound combative, I certainly agree that only having one review of anything is a poor approach; I'm just not sure what the best solution (other than providing additional reviews) is. Doniago (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Used as an arbiter, no, but because IGN reviews seem to be included for most all of the American Dad episode pages with no countervailing (or corroborating, for that matter) "sources", they are likely to be taken as a sort of de facto qualitative measurement of an episode's worth, if that makes any sense. I know that most movie pages have reception sections, too, but IGN isn't exactly the television equivalent of, say, a Roger Ebert. For something that is putatively encyclopedic, should we really include the ruminations of some random hipster jackass for every episode of a television show? Regardless of any of that, it still wasn't an acid trip. Hallucination, you bet.172.191.0.170 (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say IGN is really being used as an arbiter of anything. It's just a review in the Reception section. Including other reviews would improve the quality of the article. Doniago (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)