Talk:Lottery Fever/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 14:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll offer a review shortly. J Milburn (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• File:Family Guy promo - Lotter Fever.png is adding absolutely nothing. There's no automatic entitlement for screenshots in episode articles, and so they are needed only when they themselves are significant. This is just Peter holding a slip of paper.  Done removed Koopatrev (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• "received mixed reviews from critics for its storyline, and many cultural references." It received many cultural references?  Done reworded Koopatrev (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• The third paragraph of the lead just isn't needed. It's just one joke. A mention of it may be warranted, if any secondary sources mentioned it, but certainly not in the lead. In any case, the lead should summarise the rest of the article, and this is mentioned nowhere else.  Done removed Koopatrev (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• "After watching the results of the lottery that night, they discover that they have indeed won the lottery, and redeem their winnings." Repetition of "lottery". Also, that's not what "redeem" means.  Done reworded Koopatrev (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• "After going to a restaurant the next day, however, Peter discovers that his credit card has been declined," Tenses all wrong. His card is declined while at the restaurant  Done reworded Koopatrev (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• "despite them continuing to be depressed" Clumsy wording  Done reworded Koopatrev (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• "in correspondence with Family Guy." How can you be in correpondance with a TV show? Also, do you not mean "conjunction"?  Done not sure how to fix it, but I just got that part out. Koopatrev (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Series regulars Peter Shin and James Purdum served as supervising directors  Done Koopatrev (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• "This episode aired on BBC Three in the United Kingdom on May 20, 2012." So what? We don't need to list every "first appearance". Perhaps if you have a reference showing that this was the second apearance of the episode...  Done removed Koopatrev (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Recurring guest voice actors Alexandra Breckenridge, voice actor John G. Brennan, writer Danny Smith, writer Alec Sulkin, and writer John Viener made minor appearances." The writers appeared as voice actors?  Not done yeah, sometimes they do that Koopatrev (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Recurring guest voice actor Adam West reprises his role as an exaggerated version of himself and Lois's brother-in-law, having last done so in season 9's "It's a Trap!".[3][7]" I've no idea what this means.  Done dunno.. I reworded it anyway Koopatrev (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Peter forces Quagmire to watch True Blood.[8][9] Peter jumping in a room full of gold coins is a reference to Duck Tales.[9]" So what?  ? what do you mean? those are the cultural references Koopatrev (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There are lots of "cultural references" in every episode. Do we really need to list them all? J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    • err, I mean two isn't really a lot... and at least they're backed up with sources Koopatrev (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• "and was preceded by the season premiere of The Simpsons" Which season? Link to the episode?  Not done i dont think it's necessary to list that, it doesn't show the episode names for that in other good articles Koopatrev (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • These episode articles have so few incoming links, it just seems a shame to pass up on being specific when we can be. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    • ok  Done for The Simpsons and The Cleveland Show Koopatrev (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that this episode is only borderline notable, even though it's a season premiere. That said, the writing's not too bad, and the referencing is reasonable. With a little cleanup, this is probably going to be as ready as it could ever be for GA status. J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, looking through the article again, I'm still not really convinced that this is ready for good article status.

• "After collecting the money, the family are unable to decide how they should spend all the money" Repetition
  •  Done. TBrandley 21:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• "After Peter agrees to invest in Quagmire's projects, involving penis enhancement, Peter demands that he and Joe hang out with him in order to pay him back, and perform random tasks (including Joe asking for Stevie Nicks to play three songs for Bonnie)." Unclear. Trivial details?
• "Peter discovers his credit card got declined" This is no better than it was.
• I'm still not seeing why the "cultural references" are in any way significant
• The "production" section contains precious little actually about the production.
• In terms of secondary sources, we're seemingly limited to two reviews from borderline reliable sources, and two very short newspaper articles presumably based on "WE'VE GOT A NEW SERIES" press releases. This is a long way from ideal.

While I certainly think that decent articles can be written about episodes and/or topics of limited notability, I am not convinced that this article is a strong example. For that reason, I am going to close the review at this time. I think I'd really want to see more sources before this could be promoted- try checking some archives/contacting a user with access to them, or, if all else fails, wait; the episode could well be mentioned in future articles on Family Guy, or discussed in books about the show. I hope you do not feel that I have treated this article unfairly. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)