Jump to content

Talk:Grumpy Old Man

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 22:33, 14 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Comedy}}, {{WikiProject Animation}}, {{WikiProject Television}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Former good article nomineeGrumpy Old Man was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 9, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed

Grumpy Old Man (episode)

[edit]

Shouldn't this be listed as an episode (Or Family Guy episode)? I was directed here from Victor Meldrew, which describes the grumpy old man archetype.Magicwalltree (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Grumpy Old Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Koopatrev (talk · contribs) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article soon (before June 4, 2012).Koopatrev (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing now. Koopatrev (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and Images

[edit]
  • Prose is fine, well written
  • Images are of good quality and clear, they are tagged with copyright statuses and has a suitable caption on

Infobox

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

Plot

[edit]

Cultural references

[edit]

Production and development

[edit]

Nothing wrong so far.  Done

Reception

[edit]
  • A section is needed for reviews from critics.

References

[edit]

I'm going to put this on hold until these problems are solved.

This article is going to fail if no changes/improvements are to be made by June 9, 2012, 08:48 (UTC).Koopatrev (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final review (template)

[edit]
Final review (sorry I'm over an hour late but that's ok) Koopatrev (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is well written.

Prose quality:
Follows MOS:

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable;.:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:
The "cultural references" section is still lacking some sources for some statements. In source 3 you don't really see anything that says anything about the cultural references of this episode.

3. It is broad in coverage:

Major aspects:

The section for reviews from critics in the "reception" section is still missing. However there is still a part for U.S. viewers and ratings.

Focused:

4. It is written in a neutral point of view.:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars etc:

6. Includes images, where appropriate.:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: Sorry this probably has to fail, some parts are still lacking information.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grumpy Old Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]