Jump to content

Talk:Family Guy

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 87.63.228.190 (talk) at 16:41, 7 October 2009 (Added note about HDTV.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleFamily Guy has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 13, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 10, 2006Good article nomineeListed
August 1, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
September 9, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
October 2, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Family Guy Video Game!

Shouldn't there be at least mention of the fact there's a game based on the series? Family Guy Video Game! Lmcgregoruk (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth a brief mention. I recall this article once having a rather excessive paragraph with overkill plot details—that has been reasonably deleted. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Nominated?

why is it said at the top of the page that family guy is an emmy nominated show? shouldn't it be emmy winning show? it won 3 times. (TheGreatAsian (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The Family Guy Emmy's I'm aware of are for voice Acting, Music & Lyrics, and storyboard. Describing a show as "Emmy award winning" implies a major show category such as "Best Comedy", so it's a bit misleading.
Frankly, I think mentioning the nomination (or the cast Emmys) in the first sentence is a bit of fannish hype as well, but since the "Outstanding Comedy Series" nomination is unusual, it probably merits a place somewhere in the lede section. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast member pictures

Why are these here? I understand some editors see free images and just go crazy, but they aren't helping this article at all. There isn't a single FA-article with a gallery of the main cast. And images are supposed to be used to enhance the text; the text is not talking about the appearance of the cast in any way. BOVINEBOY2008 00:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

click here CTJF83Talk 00:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. But that doesn't change my opinion. BOVINEBOY2008 00:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
should we do a poll, or just debate about this issue. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No poll, just debating/consensus...Bovine, why do you think they don't help? It shows who the main cast is. CTJF83Talk 00:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is their appearance necessary? If someone wanted to know what one of them looks like, can't they just go to their article? You are saying that it is for identification, but their image doesn't add anything to the article. BOVINEBOY2008 00:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Think it dose but as I sayed let's try to do a poll of some sort, and of my opinion it doe it shows who is who in one artical without haveing to change as Ctjf83 showed the simpsons do have this and it is a FA. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it does for The Simpsons, why have to click on their article, if it can just be on the FG page. CTJF83Talk 00:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could simply turn that around. Why have it here if it can just be on the individual articles? And I don't think we can use status quo here. Maybe my problem here is the gallery presentation. If there were an image with them all in it, then I would be okay; it would complement the text as them being a cast (altogether) and it wouldn't be a giant bar of images going across the page. Right now it just seems to be jutting into the article for not other reason than "ooo, look at the pretty pictures". BOVINEBOY2008 00:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then lets find one of those images, who is up for it. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two, but I don't have much experience in image loading other than with posters and such. image1 (source), image2 (source) BOVINEBOY2008 00:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done this before, i'll do it. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt either of those are free, so you won't be able to add them, with out some anti-image person causing a stir. CTJF83Talk 00:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note, "Free images = good" is not entirely accurate. Free images, that are relevant, and don't clutter a page are good. A gallery of free images that serves no purpose other than to show what the voice actors look like, when their own articles can do that is not necessarily "good", warranted, or even necessary - that's my opinion on the subject. I would assume that if you went to FAC with a gallery like that, you'd probably be hit up for overuse of free images. That said, I would also say that the image of the family in the "Characters" section is also unnecessary, given that the infobox image is the family. We don't need two images when one serves the same purpose. The Xbox game image also needs to go. Unless there is critical commentary on the game cover art, then it doesn't meet WP:FUC/WP:NONFREE. The image in the "criticism" section seems good though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spell Check

Should we do something to check the spelling?. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, spell it correctly the first time.--Loodog (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we should. --Pedro J. the rookie 23:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears most of the spelling errors and poor grammar is coming from you, Pedro. CTJF83Talk 05:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crap... my native langueg is not inglish and it has been a time scence i write inlish.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please revise the word 'but' and change it to 'by' in the 6.1 Cutaway section. "cutaways have been criticized heavily but both critics and other" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinkella (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It will show up in a little while after I finish all my major edits to the page. CTJF83Talk 20:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :-) Trinkella —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Drunken clam

Hey would it be a bad idea to do an artical abaout the drunken clam, it is a regular seen place in the series. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there isn't nearly enough info to support a page. Quahog (Family Guy) couldn't even sustain a page, and it was redirected to Family Guy CTJF83Talk 08:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well i hope that some day we have enough info for the pages.--Pedro J. the rookie 15:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling errors

Someone please change "merchendise" to "merchandise". Normann1974 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guest stars

should we make a section for speacial guests, there are many. --Pedro J. the rookie 21:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Special guests tend to only have one or very few appearances in the series, none of which are that notable. On the articles for the individual episodes, all the special guests are noted. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seth MacFarlane Template

Could someone who is able to add the Seth MacFarlane Template to the bottom of this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.231.228 (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

I'm tryin to make FG a GA, so if any one has any suggestions or wants to help me say it to me. --Pedro J. the rookie 03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there are way too many images in the article. Most of them are non-free content and some don't really have a defined copyright. I don't know too much about images but eleven in one article is way too many. That is the thing jumps out at me first. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bovine. --Pedro J. the rookie 14:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Errors

Someone should fix the atrocious spelling errors in the second paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.106.58 (talk • contribs) 05:53 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take a look CTJF83Talk 06:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammer and Spelling

To whomever is running this page,

I understand it is a semi-protected page, so whomever does have access to make edits,could you please READ the paragraphs and CORRECT the spelling and grammer? Half of the article doesn't make sense.

Examples:

A co-worker presented MacFarlane to some producers at Fox and the pilot caught the attention of the producers, as which they gave MacFarlane 1500 dollars to do a pilot, and six months later he made the pilot and Fox accepted and Family Guy went on the air.[6] Run on sentence

The politicians on the show are some not normal laws, but the show those have some politics that do exist in the real world like for example the episode You May Now Kiss the... Uh... Guy Who Receives,[72] [73] Gay Marriage is band from the Quahog city because the mayor had made an error. In the show it is shown that the resident’s of the city have are close minded when it comes to religion, in the episode Not All Dogs Go to Heaven,[74] when Meg tells people that Brian is an atheist people go against him.What???

Thank you for pointing those out, I'll take a look. CTJF83Talk 21:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Someone really needs to go through the article and strip off the non-reliable sources. I took a quick scan, and half the URL references fail our verifiability policy by a long shot. In addition, could someone format the references? Bare URLS are not encouraged by policy. All in all, someone needs to simply sit down and go through every single ref. I myself am too lazy :P (That, plus I got 5 hopeful GACs). Cheers, I'mperator 14:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, we have a new user working on the article, once he gets done, I'll look over the page. CTJF83Talk 16:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception

This article only mentions negative reception of Family Guy. I'm sure there has been positive reception, I mean, the show was nominated for an Emmy after all. --68.189.106.158 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to look for some good reviews that are reliable but can't find any. Do you have any? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there are any good reviews Bovine,I have already looked and i did not find anything. --Pedro J. the rookie 20:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would really try and get some before GA nomination. There has to be positive reviews, otherwise it wouldn't be starting the 8th season. CTJF83Talk 20:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dose anyone know where to find good reviws. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some some-what positive aspects of the show commented on by Catherine Seipp, of nationalreview.com, that can be found here: http://www.nationalreview.com/seipp/seipp200502040749.asp I don't know how much of it can be used, and whether or not it is a reliable source, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.194.195 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relible Ctjf83, Bovine what you think. --Pedro J. the rookie 03:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NRO is a recognized literary journal. But we can't build an entire section or even a paragraph on one review without breaching WP:UNDUE. This will definitely come in handy when more sources are found. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:41, 15 September

2009 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. If I stumble across any more reviews, I'll post the links to the web pages her, and then it can be decided as to what can be used, where, and how much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.180.213 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey i am not very good at critics but those thease count as a Good crictisicam or just a review http://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/13/arts/the-new-season-television-critic-s-choice-a-little-dysfunctional-family-fun.html, http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/tv--radio/tv-reviews/show-of-the-week-family-guy/2009/04/20/1240079595389.html. --Pedro J. the rookie 03:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely usable, but it will be difficult as it doesn't focus soley on Family Guy. We need some more general reviews like the NRO provided by the anon user. The second one is good as it is a more focused review, but it would be preferred to have reviews from literary journals and magazines (TIME) or national (USA Today) or major regional periodicals (New York Times, LA Times). BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Time or a USA Today critics on Family Guy is a bit hard mostly becuase the USA critics i find is a man who anwsers Mail from readers, and from Time there is not much, do you think there may be a chance to do some work with the info we hhave?. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you want to right something up, maybe post it here or on a subpage of yours, it can be developed, but I really don't like seeing incomplete sections in articles (personally). I may get a chance next week to go through my colleges archives of journals, but I can't do anything now. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several reviews and articles that I have found. Feel free to check through them, and decide what can and can't be used:

This is also quite interesting, and might be able to be to fit in somewhere. It is not so much about Family Guy itself, but it does seem relevant. In it, councillor Ross Hussey states that he finds people comparing him to Peter Griffin is quite funny, and sees it as a possible way to make young people become interested in politics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8254894.stm

I'll post more links if I find any more. Kinda difficult to find any possitive ones, and even then, there is so much stuff that probably can't be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.101.163 (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are pretty reliable, but i am not very good at critical recepction related, lets Bovine come to see the new info and maybe we can work and make a good recepction. --Pedro J. the rookie 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy has also been got positive reviews from critics. Catherine Seipp of the National Review Online called it a nasty but extremely funny cartoon.[1] Caryn James from the The New York Times called it a show with outrageously satirical family, includes plenty of comic possibilities and parodies.[2]The Sydney Morning Herald gave Family Guy a positive review calling it the Show Of The Week in April 21, 2009, and also called it pop culture-heavy masterpiece.[3] Frazier Moore from the Seattle Times called it an endless craving for humor about bodily emissions. He also called it breathtakingly smart, blend of the ingenious with the raw helps account for its much broader appeal and also called it rude, crude and deliciously wrong.[4] And actress Emily Blunt called it her favorite series.[5]

I think it would be good to put it in the artical. --Pedro J. the rookie 03:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of those listed so far, I'd favor including the NY Times review (as it's the newspaper of record) and the NRO review (as it's a source one would expect to condemn FG) and the Associated Press writer (as published in Seattle Times). The rest seem trivial (Emily Blunt?), limited in scope (reviews of a single episode or DVD volume), self-published, or plausibly puff pieces (the intro to a MacFarlane interview isn't likely to go negative).
I would strongly recommend removing the references from other cartoons as they are not serious criticism—a brief mention of Parker & Stone's (South Park) interview and similar criticism from John Kricfalusi (Ren & Stimpy) can be kept since these are interviews. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps changing the last sentence to "Actress Emily Blunt has stated that Family Guy is her favorite series, and has expressed strong interest in becoming a guest star on the show.[6]" would be more appropriate? It would certainly make it more relevant, as it shows her eagerness and willingness to become involved in the show itself, professionally, as a voice actress, as opposed to just being a big fan.

 Done. --Pedro J. the rookie 16:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-GAC review

  • Usually references are not used in the lead, as they are suppose to be covered later on in the text  Done
  • 2nd paragraph doesn't flow well in my opinion from Larry Shorts to being canceled in the 3rd season
  • History section: I don't really like how it flows, it might just be the poor grammar Done
    • A year for cancellation is needed
  • possibly combine executive producers and writing, not sure the producers need their own section, since it basically just lists who they are Done
  • re-order voice section so Meg is before recurring charcters  Done
  • cancellation section "There was a great deal of debate and rumor during the second and third seasons about whether Family Guy would be canceled or renewed." debate and rumor by who? Done
  • "In an attempt to convince Fox to renew the show, dismayed fans created websites, signed petitions, and wrote letters—some even sent diapers and baby food to the network to "save" Stewie" nothing on the source says any of this Done
  • "A shift in power at Fox resulted in the ordering of thirteen new episodes forming the basis of the third season." A shift in power involving who at Fox? Done
  • "For its first three seasons, Family Guy did not use an especially large cast of recurring minor characters. Since returning from cancellation, many one-shot characters from prior episodes have reappeared in new episodes, although most of the plotlines center on the exploits of the Griffin family."[citation needed] Done
  • Many problems in the Themes section Done
    • However, because of its animated nature, Family Guy's scope is larger than that of a regular sitcom.[citation needed] Done
    • "The town of Quahog acts as a complete universe in which characters can explore the issues faced by modern society." What?? Done
    • "By having Peter unemployed for many episodes and him getting jobs for just one episode it has opportunity to show the town of Quahog" This doesn't even make sense, why would he have to be fired or working a new job to show around Quahog and I don't see it mentioned in the source. Done
    • I don't think the last sentence is needed, and it is poorly written Done
  • I am doubting any of the songs are "critically acclaimed", plus there is no source for that.  Done
  • The music and score for the episode "Lois Kills Stewie" was nominated for an Emmy award in 2008[citation needed]  Done
  • What kind of source is this?  Done
  • Family Guy has been commercially successful in the home market.[citation needed] The show was the first to be resurrected because of high DVD sales.[citation needed] Done
  • I don't think we need the ISBN numbers listed...but I'm not sure it hurts anything either Done
  • It would be a great thing for someone to get Family Guy and Philosophy: A Cure for the Petarded, which will probably contain valuable info for the article. Also, I don't see any DVD commentary, which will be a great source for inside info.

Overall it is much improved from what it use to be. But, even with my suggestions, I'm not sure if it quite reaches the GA level (depending on how hard the reviewer is). I'd say watch DVD commentary and read the book I suggested. It'll take time, but GA/FAs are a lot of work. Good luck! CTJF83Talk 21:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episode List

shouldnt there be a section about episodes with a link to the episode list? That information is nowhere on the article other than the infobox Arg2k (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely should. I was looking for it the other day and couldn't find it, had to type it in the search bar.Stewartdc8 (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean? What would the section say? The FA The Simpsons doesn't have an episode section. CTJF83Talk 05:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what is the exact point if there is a link, and FA simpsons and GA south park do not have them. --Pedro J. the rookie 13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of shows with just the link to the episodes list under the episodes section, or at the top of a "plot" section (although there is no plot section for Family Guy). i do think it is an oversight that these articles don't have them. Stewartdc8 (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too think its an oversight not to have such link as it would be hard for the average internet user to find the episode list if the article stays this way. I agree the episode list should be under the episode section, just like music articles have a discography section that consists of just a link to the discography article Arg2k (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would a plot or episode section say? Just have "Episodes" section, with "list of episodes" below it like here or here? That is too short of a section, and wouldn't be to the level of a GA article. CTJF83Talk 20:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about these good articles? they have a episode list link. Heroes (TV series), Kiss (band) (has the same link but with discography, band members, filmography, awards), Lost (TV series), Futurama. Btw, this article has just been delisted as a good article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arg2k (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with those examples is that they are plot and story-arc driven series (Heroes and Lost). The Futurama section should be looked at in future GA reviews as it is a short section with no references. Plus it is mentioned in the navigation box at the end. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arrested Development has a little chart with the episodes list link. I think an Episodes section would only help this article. Stewartdc8 (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

look we mostly think of the simpsons when why compare, so the simposons is a FA and dose not have one so i say it would not work. --Pedro J. the rookie 02:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Main cast members" section

MacFarlane, Borstein and Henry all have 'others' listed in their credits, but why not Green? He has voiced several additional characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.194.195 (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adult-themed

the adult-themed animated series The Simpsons i'm soory but that was clearly written but someone whos never in there live watched family guy the simpsons IS NOT adult themed watch south park and this and others etc... i needs and should be changed to an adult version of the simpsons instead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.199.25 (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fixed CTJF83Talk 06:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High definition

At some point, the page said that Family Guy would be in HDTV 720p this fall, and it was later changed to 2010. In fact, this current season of FG seems to be produced in HDTV 720p (but in 4:3 though). Since I don't live in the US, I can not verify which channels broadcast the show in 720p, but true 720p (i.e. not up-scaled) rips exist for the first two episodes of the current season. 87.63.228.190 (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Family Guy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

It's impressive.

  1. Well written
  2. Cleary nonbiased
  3. A bit shaky on the stability part
  4. Images stay on topic.
  5. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

I say it's ready to be a good article. Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: a pass . Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Guy&oldid=318483050"