Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hell Comes to Quahog/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Hell Comes to Quahog

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • First GAN • Second GAN
Result: Delist per unresolved GA concerns below. The prose is still poor and the article is packed with unencyclopedic trivia. Geometry guy 11:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in heavy need of a copyedit (most of the cultural reference section repeats "When this happened... When this happened..."), with a lot of grammar problems throughout. The reception section is merely the Nielsen rating and a couple lines from one review. Someone brought up the reception issue on the talk page over a year ago, but it was neither responded to nor dealt with. I'm surprised this was passed in the first place, and feel it should be delisted if the article is not improved to meet GA standards. Ωphois 09:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Resoveled the Cr issue. --Pedro J. the rookie 12:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs copyedit throughout, and an expansion of the reception section. Ωphois 17:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am aware, i am not retared. --Pedro J. the rookie 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Pedro J. the rookie 17:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More copyediting needed. For example: "TV Squad gave the episode a positive review calling the installment much better then previous ones, but he critczed the story comparing the story with a South Park èpisode titled Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes, which had a simaler plot. He also comented negatively towards puting Peter to work at the store." ->five errors. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean no offence at all by this, but it'd better to have the article copyedited by someone who has quite a high standard of English (that's not a dig at Pedro, I'm just going off comments made by him elsewhere). I'm also spotting minor errors in WP:MOS (eg. use of italics and quotation marks) and there's a link to a disambiguation page. The prose is not great, for example; "Much of the music throughout the episode was written by Walter Murphy, who was selected to perform the 1970s song, "A Fifth of Beethoven", which was played at the roller rink scene, as well as other music played in the episode which follows the style of Elmer Bernstein's theme to Stripes when Brian and Stewie are destroying the store." and "Several variations were made to "the ice man" scene, who was originally meant to be fighting with his wife, but was changed for legality reasons." I'll have another look, but it may need to be addressed by someone more familiar with the show/episode.--BelovedFreak 18:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have copyedited the plot (having viewed the episode). I may have introduced errors: please check. Geometry guy 22:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA issues. I've copyedited the Reception section as well, but it is rather lacking in material and the description of the two reviews as "positive" is rather bland. I find it hard to believe that "TV Squad" is a reliable source: it looks like a group blog to me, and the evidence of editorial oversight in the review is approximately nil ("Coloring, plunger nipples, and hiding in the clothes racks were just meh for me" and "While not necessarily a critique of this episode, I am a little concerned with the direction of Stewie" illustrate the abysmal prose in the review).
I would have copyedited the production and cultural references sections, where the prose is very weak (as noted by other reviewers), but both sections are almost entirely sourced to DVD commentary (a primary source). Such extensive reliance on primary source material is inappropriate in general, but as a source for what is essentially trivia, it is particularly unencylopedic.
It seems to me that the article fails 1a, 1b (fiction), 2 (lack of reliable sources), 3a (inadequate reception) and 3b (extensive primary source material). In the long term, I suggest finding more reliable sources, and absorbing the cultural references into the reception, where reviewers note them. In the short term, delisting looks like the best way to go. Geometry guy 21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Unfortunately, there are several other Family Guy GAs that suffer from the same shortcomings. Hopefully they will also be reviewed at some point and be brought up to GA standards. Sasata (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd like to reiterate my statement from another recent GAR of a different Family Guy episode. You know, it's not that difficult to expand an article. I've expanded the article, and copyedited it, and it should now be up to GA standards. I would like to thank Ophois for withdrawing his other GAR nomination, after I was able to address their concerns about the article, and I hope the same will be done here. Thanks. Gage (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for improving the prose, but in your expansion you have added only primary sourced and unreliably sourced information. The article is now 95% primarily sourced, and fails criteria 1b and 3b even more extensively than it did before, while 3a remains unaddressed. I will check whether Mother Tucker has similar outstanding problems: thanks for drawing attention to it. Geometry guy 22:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, please. And your questionabilty of TV Squad as a reliable source is unfounded. The website is owned and operated by AOL, Incorporated. Gage (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that make it a reliable source? Geometry guy 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How does your questioning of its reliabilty have any merit whatsoever? Gage (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair to Geometry guy, the onus is on editors to prove the reliability of sources, not other editors to disprove reliability. I personally don't know how reliable TV squad is although it seems to have been accepted at recent FAC discussions ([1] [2]). It would be good to have some more information on how much fact checking or editorial oversight there is. As I've recently started an individual reassessment of another Family Guy article, I have to say that I too am a little concerned about the FG GAs as a group. It seems that too many are slipping through the net that actually fall short of the criteria.--BelovedFreak 16:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked into this further, and it is a difficult question. Being owned by AOL is not per se a reason to call a source reliable: Facebook is also owned by a significant international company, but that does not mean every page on Facebook is a reliable source. The problem with TV Squad is that it is a group blog, and per WP:RS, blogs are not reliable secondary sources. The concern is that such sources are self-published. However, in defense of TV Squad, it does have a core of regular contributors and an editorial staff, so despite its claim to be a blog (part of Weblogs, Inc., an AOL subsidiary) it has some features in common with an online newspaper. The site has been discussed once at WP:RSN, but without substantial input.
    My concern is that there does not appear to be editorial oversight across the entire blog, but instead, contributing reviewers are encouraged that their words will be published unedited. The format aims to guarantee the independence of the reviews, but not their quality. Hence my view is that reviews from TV Squad should be judged on a case-by-case basis. In this case, as noted above, the quality of the review (or lack of it) speaks for itself, and I would not accept it as a reliable source if I were reviewing this article as a GAN. Geometry guy 21:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The quality of that review seems perfectly fine to me. That, combined with the aforementioned editorial team, makes TV Squad a reliable source in my opinion. Ωphois 16:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you believe that someone from the editorial team read the review before it was posted in its current form? Geometry guy 20:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are doing their job, then yes. Ωphois 20:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be their job in a newspaper or magazine, online or otherwise, but in a group blog, they may not consider it so. It is a question of scale. A newspaper or magazine only publishes a reasonable number of reviews per day/week/month, but with a group blog, it isn't reasonable to expect an editorial team of 7 to read every review of every TV show posted by every blogger accepted by the site.
    The point about editorial control is that you sack or do not further consult contributors who write atrociously. This is not so clear with a blog. In the case of this review, it has clearly not been read by anyone with a modicum of English language proficiency. The first half of the review is weak.
    • "It did serve as a good backdrop for some funny stuff though. And really, any time someone wants to put the boots to Wal-Mart, I'm ok with it." And really? Ok with it, in what way?
    • "Things started out on a good note with Red Dawn the musical and the who's that kind of drunk bit... Pepperidge Farms remembers, the Ice Man's trail to the gay club, and Hummer guy were all good." Good? Why isn't "Who's that kind of drunk" in quotes?
    • "And it's worth mentioning that American Dad was solid again. That really wasn't the focus here though." Why is it worth mentioning? Just to prove how lame is this review?
    • "What was great to see was that the jokes were good and so fast." Desperately bad prose.
    The second half is even worse.
    • "For me, it's a fine line when they go retarded with Peter. Sometimes it plays really funny, and sometimes it just gets annoying. Coloring, plunger nipples, and hiding in the clothes racks were just meh for me. They did pay off well when it led to Meg not firing Peter, and then Peter refusing to acknowledge her at the end of the show." Who went retarded? What fine line? What does "meh" mean out of quotes? What does the sentence mean in general? Who paid off well? Was it the coloring, the plunger nipples or the clothes racks which benefited? Or none of the above?
    • "While not necessarily a critique of this episode, I am a little concerned with the direction of Stewie." This is one of the most damning sentences of the review. It isn't about style or being cool: the reviewer is simply incapable of constructing a sentence, and any editorial control would address that. The first clause is a modifier for the first noun "I", so it reads that "I am not necessarily a critique of this episode", which is clear since a critique is a text, not a person. It is followed by a concern about the direction of Stewie: does he face too far north, perhaps? Or is he a sentient being who could do better with the right direction? A simple copyedit would clarify the intended meaning: none was made.
    • "And that will do it for a while. Once again, baseball will rear it's ugly head and there will be no more new Family Guy until the beginning of November." Do it for what? What head?
    This material does not indicate any effort to establish or maintain a reputation for reliability. Geometry guy 22:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that there were some grammar issues, but they were more nitpicks IMO than any glaring issues. I've seen other reviews from newspaper websites that are also written in this style, though. I still feel it is a reliable source. Ωphois 23:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      It is far worse than grammar issues. Of course the intended meaning can be intuited by editors such as yourself and myself who have watched the episode, but would you employ someone this incompetent? I notice you have not responded to the worst abuses in your threaded reply and in others you "assume" the likely meaning. What is the poor hapless reader to conclude? (This is a global encyclopedia.) The prose is of a nature that would be crucified in 7th grade English. "Yes dear, I know what you meant, well done in expressing yourself" is something for grades 5 and below. Geometry guy 23:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • From my experience, television reviews are generally targeted at fans who have already watched the episodes, and are usually in a blog-like format. They are much different than movie reviews. Ωphois 18:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The IGN review makes a useful comparison. I'm unconvinced that IGN (originally a games network) is a good source for TV reviews, and the prose in the review is arguably even worse than in the TV Squad review. Is it by chance that the analysis is slightly more insightful? What makes IGN a reliable source for TV episode reviews? These are both questions, and being owned by a large corporation is not an answer. Geometry guy 22:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per review by Belovedfreak. JJ98 (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per concerns re sourcing and comments of Geometry guy. This may also be a broader issue for other articles, but I'm just responding to this particular GAR. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Gage, the article looks great CTJF83 chat 06:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this matters or not (possible conflict of interest?), but all votes for "keep" are from members of the Family Guy project. Ωphois 21:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a conflict of interest, because GAR is not a vote, and all contributions as to whether the article meets the criteria are welcome. However, for the same reason, comments which are little more than "I like it" or "I don't like it" play a negligible role in determining consensus. GA concerns have been raised by several reviewers, and have remained unaddressed for some time, so this GAR is ready to close as "delist" anytime soon. Geometry guy 13:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Hell_Comes_to_Quahog/1&oldid=1138522400"