Talk:Untitled Griffin Family History/Archive 1

wtf

family guy and simpsons episodes on the same day on evolution, who stole it first?

It could be that the network asked for it. Remember when Seinfeld refused to participate in the blackout theme for Must See TV a few years ago? Or it could just be a coincidence.

Can't you think of older Simpsons episodes from which this Family Guy episode's writers might have helped themselves? I can think of at least two. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

About the NOR and CITE

I have a copy of the episode, and it was a typo in my part to include an exclamation point. Here is a link of the sceenshot regarding the "That's Pie" ruckus: http://www.imgmonkey.com/image/1286-thatspieproof.JPG And if you doubt the Robert Duvall or De Niro part I can post an audio file but I dont know where I could upload it. Do whatever you want to this article.

Notes

Sorry, but non-sequitur references cannot be counted as reality. If we count Adolf as a relative, we also have to count Peter as Huttese, Spanish and Jewish, and those are just off the top of my head.

The title:

DVD's state that the episode is called Griffin Family History, With no Untitled.

The official family guy site lists it as Untitled

I would take the DVD title till confirmed as Untitled because the UK DVD, released on the end week of October 2006, is very recent, therefore confirming it has recent source data, where as the Website may not have been updated to make the changes.

Region 4

>>>When the thieves get scared of Meg, she responds with "Take me now, fuck me later!", this is the chorus of Mindless Self Indulgence's song "Faggot". It was only seen on the Region 4 Volume 4 release.

Can anyone put a clip of this on YouTube or something? I really wanna see this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.195.64 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I watched the episode tonight and didn't see that reference in there.

Willie "Black Eye" Griffin

That scene where he says like a whole sentence, and then the cue card reads "That's pie.", that's almost like the Radiohead video where the guy's talking at the end, but you don't know what he's saying unless you can lip-read. - Ndrly 10:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Inspired by Curb Your Enthusiasm?

If you look at the last scene where Peter voices his opinion on the Godfather films, I cant help but think that the style of that scene is almost identical to many of the situations in Curb Your Enthusiasm. The natural acting and almost unprofessional finish are the trademark styles of CYE and if you watch some of the episodes there are conversations in CYE with almost identical reactions and comments. (i.e Peter saying 'It insists on itself' and Lois repeating asking what the hell that means') its hard to explain but im sure any CYE fans will also see the resemblance.

Commentary stuff

• When the episode depiction of how the universe is created, God saying "you smell that" was not broadcast on television. (MacFarlane)
• The dinosaur scene which shows the Griffins portrayed as dinosaurs was not broadcast on TV. (Veiner)
• On the commentary, MacFarlane credits the colour department of the production, commenting "[the colour] is a lot richer than [the show] usually goes". (MacFarlane)
• There was a Michael Jackson originally going to be in the episode but was cut for time to be included in another episode. (MacFarlane)
• The story of Nate Griffin makes a reference to the first installment of Roots. (MacFarlane)
• Brian's line in the woods when he is warning Peter about the dangers was originally intended to be longer, talking about stuff such as discussing automobile ratings, but it was shortened for unknown reasons. (MacFarlane)
• The ship captain floating on the water is a reference to a scene from Meatballs, with the same song appearing in the episode that was used in the film. (Goodman)
• MacFarlane describes the animation sequence of the horse smashing up the bedroom of Lois (Lois being the daughter of the plantation owner) as "a piece of brilliance". (MacFarlane)
• When Carter, the plantation owner, discovers his Daughter and her secret family, there was a rape joke in there, but it was removed, although not for broadcasting standards, but rather it was cut by the producers. (Elias) (MacFarlane)
• The grain on the flashback to Peter's silent movie star relative was added into the sketch by Mike Elias to make it appear as if it had been kept away for several years. (MacFarlane)
• The internation Civil War 2 joke, which was described as an "interesting joke" by MacFarlane, was pitched by show producer Mark Hentemann. (MacFarlane)
• The card fight cut was cut from television broadcasting in order to save time. (MacFarlane) (Elias)
• The Hitler gag was included in the episodes first draught, and he was voiced by Veiner, although MacFarlane normally voices Hitler if he is included in any sketches. (Goodman)
• Hitler shown talking to his wife about how much Peter is annoying him was cut from television broadcast for timing. (Goodman) (Moncrief)
• The argument between the family over The Godfather has actually been argued over its quality in the Family Guy writing room. (Goodman)

Qst (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Under review. Otto4711 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose is generally all right but the article needs to be copy edited, focusing especially on punctuation (many possessives are missing apostrophes (e.g. "the episodes depiction" should be "the episode's depiction) and subject-verb tense agreement (e.g. "the couple discover" should be "the couple discovers"). A few awkward sentences. Perhaps change "Due to the room not having a telephone or an inside door handle, Peter begins to tell stories about the history of the Griffin family." to something like "The room has no telephone or inside door handle so the family is trapped. Peter begins to tell stories about the history of the Griffin family to pass the time." and "Meg is attempting to be raped by the burglars downstairs" to "Meg is attempting to seduce the burglars" or "Meg is trying to induce the burglars to rape her". Suggest reducing overlinking of common terms like "plantation" and "rape" per Wikipedia:MOS#Wikilinks.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I am concerned that the bulk of the references are to primary sources like the DVD commentary. Are there no secondary or tertiary sources that discuss any aspect of production? I am also concerned about the reliability of TV Squad and IGN as sources. This is my largest concern with the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm going to place the article on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. This really needs additional sources that are unrelated to the episode before I can pass it.

• As my concerns have not been addressed, I am failing the article. Otto4711 (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to number 2, I think DVD commentaries are considered secondary sources as they're not actually a part of the episode, they are just packaged along with the episode on the DVD. They are, however, not produced by a 3rd party that's independent of the article topic. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. I'm looking through WP:RS and I'm not seeing that mentioned. Would you happen to know what that's based on? Otto4711 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In WP:PSTS, a secondary source is described as one step removed from the event. It doesn't say DVD commentaries specifically, but as they are not actually part of the episode then I would say they are a good secondary source. Similar to a "making of" video on a DVD or something like that, except they're available during the viewing of the episode. There's quite a few GA and FA Simpsons articles that use the DVD commentaries as secondary sources for production information. Homer Simpson for example. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and I've certainly used commentary tracks myself to fill in production details. My concern is that the article doesn't cite much of anything in the way of independent reliable sources to show that the episode is even notable, much less sourced to the level of a GA. I'm having difficulty with the notion of listing this article without at least some sourcing that's completely separate from the episode and/or its creative team. Otto4711 (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there. Of the 5 independent sources, the tv.com one is user-editable content so it fails RS, the BBC source is just a schedule listing and the IGN link only has a passing mention of the episode as it is a DVD set review. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a full second opinion on the article and also opened a discussion on DVD commentaries as sources here. Otto4711 (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

In the scene where God lights a fart, causing the big bang, after the explosion, as we see galaxies drift outward and away, we hear god say "Ah, ya smell that?" This line was dropped from later broadcasts, at least on Fox. Anybody else notice this? --98.232.181.201 (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception

I see that this article has been nominated for GA. If you want it to pass, then the reception section really needs to be beefed up. The lead says that reviews were overall negative, but you only give one negative review... You need to find many more critical opinions. Ophois (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Untitled Griffin Family History/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: —97198 (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC) The article is looking okay thus far but there are still a number of minor things to be fixed as well as a few bigger things. Untitled Griffin Family History

• Introduction is too short - it should summarise every section in the article, so it should mention some aspects of Production and Cultural references (read WP:LEAD for further explanation)
• The episode follows Peter's telling of the family history - kind of clumsy, could be reworded
• where it is discovered that Peter's ancestor - "discovered" is probably the wrong word, "revealed" makes more sense
• He, along with Quagdingo and Joe Mama prank the ship captain - should be a comma after "Joe Mama", "pranks"
• he falls in love with the owners daughter - possessive "owner's"
• After being discovered by his lovers father - ditto "lover's"
• Meg is attempting to be raped by the burglars - might read better as "Meg is trying to persuade the burglars to rape her" to avoid some confusion
• his ancestor, who was silent film star in the 1920s - shouldn't have a comma, "was a silent"
• although annoying Adolf greatly - should be just "though" instead of "although" or reword to "although he annoyed Adolf greatly"
• therefore saving their lives - reads better as "thus saving..."
• During the DVD commentary, show creator Seth MacFarlane credits the color department of the production, commenting "[the color] is a lot richer than [the show] usually goes". - this makes no sense at all. What does he credit to them? By the way it's written, one would guess that the rich colors were the reason that parts of the episode were cut out.
• although it was shortened for unknown reasons - as above for "although" (should be "though")
• upon Carter discovering his daughter - should be "upon Carter's discovery of his daughter"
• this scene is relevant to an actual argument - "relevant to" is completely the wrong word to use. Maybe say "this scene is drawn from an actual argument"?
• Why is "Singin' in the Rain" in quotation marks? Should just be italicised.
• The claim that the episode got "mixed reviews from critics" is completely unjustified. There are only two reviews given, which is far from enough to make a generalisation of the reception. Both reviews seem to be negative too (assuming that "so-so" equals not good) so if there was a generalisation that could be made, it would be "negative" not "mixed".
• On the whole, I'm not sure that two reviews is enough to carry the critical side of Reception - re: WP:WIAGA #3, I'm not sure it is "broad in its coverage"

I'll place the GAN on hold so you have seven days to address the issues mentioned above. —97198 (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've noticed that you have several articles nominated at GAN. As you can see, there's a pretty big backlog there at the moment so it'd be great if you could review an article (or a few) yourself. Thanks —97198 (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Did everthing above execpt increase reception for reason read below--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments i'll put my douts here--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1.Two reviews is more than enoaugh for many GAs.

Though the reviews on the article are just each a quoted sentence. Sometimes two or three reviews can be enough, but only if they go in-depth. Ωphois 00:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

compared to other GAs it alright.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Other GA's such as what? Ωphois 00:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, be aware that you're using the argument that other stuff exists, which is never really valid. Just because there are other GAs that maybe don't quite meet the criteria, doesn't mean this one should be allowed to slide. —97198 (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well takeing that aside TV squad and IGN are the most frecuent critics in our episodes, plus there is not that much recep i can find--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

With the reception section as it is now, I really don't think the article meets criterion #3 (broad in coverage), so I personally don't want to pass the article. If you strongly disagree, we can list the article for a second opinion at GAN and get another reviewer in for a look. —97198 (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well SO i do not think there are more rece but i'll try to expand from the present reviews--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Could not find more and of my understandment if none more info is to be found there is not much to do, but iwill keep looking.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there is not really any reception info out there, that may be an indicator that the episode lacks notability. That is my philosophy with the Supernatural articles, which is why I only make articles on episodes that have enough information available; otherwise, I group notable information into the season page. Looking at this article, it is basically just the plot, some cultural references and cultural references that were removed, and a couple sentences about reception. Ωphois 16:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats priducction and as i said many articals have this info and are notable as you said before 2 reviews are enough for articals.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Production for me is usually episode origins, the writing process, problems with making the episode, etc. This is basically a list of deleted scenes. And I said sometimes two or three can be enough if they are in-depth enough, which is not the case with this article. As 97198 mentioned, you are using the other stuff exists argument. Ωphois 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I now i'm useing that, that counts as production and that reception is notable.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The decision is ultimately up to 97198, but judging by the lack of production details, I'm having doubts as to whether this episode is even notable enough to have an article of its own. Ωphois 20:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have menciond this to you, you edit SN related articals real life episodes are completely diffrent from animated, plus if i may say you are very perfectionsit(from my opinion, from whactin some of your work).--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I just clicked on three random Simpsons GA, and all three of them have the types of details I mentioned. Just because the show is animated doesn't mean similar issues or processes don't occur behind the scenes. Ωphois 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You are useing other stuff exists--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 22:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm showing how your argument is incorrect. You claimed that animated articles cannot reach proper standards because animation production is different, which the Simpsons articles disprove. As I said before, a lack of available details on the episode hints that the episode probably lacks notability. Ωphois 22:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets 97198 decide if it passes, fails, or SO as he is the nominator.--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 01:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ophois is right in suggesting that there could be a notability problem, but at the moment consensus is still very hazy about TV episodes' notability. This article has a fair amount of production information sourced to DVD commentaries and has been reviewed in a couple of third-party sources, so I don't think the article needs to go as far as deletion. But unfortunately I don't think it can be promoted to a GA - read WP:RGA ("Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria."). Sorry, but I'm going to close the GAN as a fail. —97198 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)