Talk:Peter Griffin/GA1

Comments[edit]

I can't help but feel that the in-universe content is simply too hooked onto trivial jokes, such as Peter punching a whale, Peter finding a pipe organ, or Nate inventing the DMV [which I thought was trivial enough to warrant immediate deletion]. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Review[edit]

I've started my GAN review, which I've posted below. I'll try to get the rest done soon. Please address each one line by line and I'll strike them as we go...

General

To be frank, there have been some pretty serious prose and grammatical problems with this article. I've fixed a lot of it as I've gone along, but whether this article passes or not, you might consider a WP:Peer review...
I think New Age Retro Hippie has a point above. Please look over what is sourced to episodes and consider whether some of it is trivial and could be removed. Also, I think some degree of citing episodes and primary sources is acceptable in an article about a fictional character, but there are too many episodes used as sources in this page, and I'm guessing there are reviews or other articles that are reliable sources and could replace the episode cites. Could you please see if you could replace some of them?
Question, the talk page says this was nominated for GAN before in August 2009, but did not pass. I cannot find the former GAN review page for it. Can you direct me to that link so I can look over the past GAN review?

Was failed because it was not ready i was new to wiki so i thought it was ready. --Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 19:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but that means there was probably a GAN review page, like this one you are reading now. Can you give me the link to that old page? — Hun ter Ka hn 20:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was cancelled without one br=ecause ity had no good conditions
- So there was never even a review page? How were you notified it was cancelled? Usually there is a review page, even if it's a quick-fail matter... — Hun ter Ka hn 22:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Role in Family Guy

The first two paragraphs of this section are unsourced. I think we can be a little flexible with the sourcing in this case, but all of this information is pretty basic stuff, and I'm sure there are many sources that can be found to cite this information.
There is way too much information in here about Ernie the Giant Chicken. This article is about Peter, not Ernie, who has his own page. I'd suggest cutting everything after "became a running gag in regular episodes".

No if you want to askwho reviewed it i may tell you. --Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 23:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...ok? Who reviewed it? — Hun ter Ka hn 00:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ctjf83. --Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 01:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Character: Creation

According to the first paragraph, MacFarlane made the sequel to The Life of Larry in both 1999 and 1995. Something is obviously wrong there, especially since the main article for that page indicates the sequel was made in 1997, not 1995 or 1999. Can you fix all this?
"[...] about one twentieth of what most pilots cost." I don't see any reason this has to be used in a quote. Can you paraphrase it and drop the quotation? That way you don't have to include "as MacFarlane stated in a 2006 interview" either...

Character: Personality

This link is no good. Can you find a replacement?

Character:Ancestry

Please fix the "I Dream of Jesus" citation to fit Template:Cite episode, like the others...

Reception: Commendations

Can you mention where the song "Shipoopi" came from? Is this an original song written for Family Guy, or was it from some other show, or was it by another artist?
"British newspaper The Times rated Peter and the other characters as the forty-fifth best American show in 2009, they were also named the seventh of the top one-hundred animated series by IGN." Were it the characters that ranked in this way, or the show? If it's the latter, is it worth mentioning in an article about Peter Griffith? At the very least, it has to be reworded to be more clear...

can you explain this one better. --Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 19:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to finish the rest soon. — Hun ter Ka hn 05:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You say here that the characters were rated the best show. That doesn't make sense. So which is it? Were the lists rating the best animated characters in television? Or were they rating the best shows? — Hun ter Ka hn 20:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It from the best shows, i guess i must remove that right?, i added some refrences to the role but for the genaral the ansestry has no refrences but episodes cites becuase there are no refrences.--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 21:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe there are no references beyond the episodes. There are many books that have been written about Family Guy, yet none of them seem to have been consulted for this article, which sort of gives me pause when it comes to reviewing a GAN for such a major character in this series. Just look at this Google Books link. "Family guy: the official episode guide", "Drawn to television: prime-time animation from the Flintstones to Family guy‎", "Family guy and philosophy: a cure for the petarded". All of these books seem like they would be applicable here. A GA doesn't have to be as comprehensive as an FA, of course, but it should cover all the broad aspects... — Hun ter Ka hn 17:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i do not own any books but i'll look at the links. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

a. Is this all the review?
- No, I still have a little bit to do, but you can start in the meantime. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
b. Do i need to remove the reception part that talks about the show?
- Either that, or rewrite it to show why it's relevant to the Peter Griffin character, not the show. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 12:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More[edit]

Critical reception

As I said before, a GA doesn't have to be comprehensive like an FA, but it does have to cover all the broad aspects of its subject. I highly doubt that this section covers all the broad aspects of the critical reception to the Peter Griffith character. In a nutshell, all this section says is that Peter has been called a Homer Simpson ripoff, that he was mocked in a South Park episode, and it mentions one very specific example of controversy regarding the AIDs song. Is this all there is to say about Peter Griffin when it comes to critical reception? I doubt it. This section needs to be expanded big time. It doesn't even include anything about whether the character has recieved any positive reviews, which we both know he has...
"Peter Griffin has received mixed reviews from television critics..." and "The character has mostly been criticized for being too similar to Homer Simpson" In both of these cases, you are making a very general, sweeping statement, but you only follow it up with one source. If you are going to state these things as facts, you need more sources to back them up.
"Family Guy is also mocked in a two-part episode, "Cartoon Wars Part I" and "Cartoon Wars Part II", of South Park." OK, this is an excellent example of an instance in which a television episdoe is used as a source, even though it could easily be replaced with other reliable sources. Rather than citing th episode (which should only be done when absolutely necessary, if at all) you could easily substitute in a review of the South Park episode. A more rigurous search for alternative sources could probably turn up other possible replacements for episode citations elsewhere in the article.
Additionally, the fact that Family Guy was mocked in the South Park "Cartoon Wars" episodes is entirely irrelevant to the Peter Griffin character. You need to reword this to reflect how the character, not the show, was mocked in the episode.
This link, which is used as a citation for the AIDS info, is dead. It needs to be replaced.

Cultural influence

This section is in need of even more work than Critical reception is. The section is called "Cultural influence", but I don't think the content really reflects that. It's really just a collection of appearances Peter Griffin has made in other television shows, as well as a hodgepodge of stuff that should really be in the Critical Reception and Merchandise sections. You need to take another pass through this section and consider whether it's even worth keeping...
You repeat information here about how Peter Griffin has been said to resemble Homer Simpson, which is covered in the previous section. All that info should be in the same place...
"Among the other members of the Griffin family, Peter appeared in the South Park episode Cartoon Wars." You already said this in "Critical reception". Why repeat it here? I've gone ahead and removed it myself.
The stuff about the Subway Restaurants should be in Merchandise, not here.
"NFL News reporter Michael Fabiano felt it was a bad decision to have an obese character advertise for a chain of restaurants that based their advertisement campaigns on health." This is interesting, although I'd suggest this too be moved to the "Merchandise" section along with the Subway info there.. I'd be curious as to whether anyone else have voiced this criticism? If so, I'd add those as citations and drop Fabiano's name from the article.
"The episode "Patriots Games" features a two-and-a-half-minute rendition of the song "Shipoopi" from the 1957 musical The Music Man, conducted by Peter and performed by the Patriots and people in the stadium." Who cares? Why is this in this section, or in this article at all for that matter? What's the relevance?
"Peter and the other Family Guy characters have been an influence to the idom..." What does this mean? It should be reworded...

Upon some reflection and further review, I'm beginning to think that this article is not ready for GA status yet. I think it has promise, and a lot of good elements are there. But there are also some major problems that will require some serious work to fix up. I'm not at all sure this article covers all the broad aspects of the Peter Griffin subject (I've identified a few sections that are particularly lacking above, but the problems aren't necessarily limited to those). Also, there are some sourcing issues; some of the links are dead, and there are way too many episode citations that could easily be replaced with a little footwork. There are major sources (the books, and probably others) that have not been touched upon yet. I don't expect you to go out and buy a whole ton of books, but at the same time I can't ignore that that information is being neglected. And last but not least, the article's prose needs work. I've fixed up what I can here and there, but I think a more rigorous copy edit and possibly a peer review would be warranted.

I'm sorry to fail any article, and I hope you see this not as an insult, but as a jumping point from which to make improvements. I'll give you a little bit of time to respond before I fail the article. If it does fail, I hope the improvements are made and that Peter Griffin is back before WP:GAN soon! — Hun ter Ka hn 23:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its been a good review.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding, Pedro. I'm glad to see you aren't frustrated, and I hope you follow through with improvements to the article! I'm going to go ahead and not pass it for now... — Hun ter Ka hn 21:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]