Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Family Guy/archive1

Family Guy

Self nomination. Here's the peer review, much of its suggestions have been taken into account. A concise, detailed, and sourced article that is relevant and is up to par with featured article criteria. -- Wikipedical 22:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I advise you all to revisit the Family Guy page again as there as been much revision. I believe that the "fancruft" in the former 'popular culture references' section that you're refering to has been done away with, and again I believe this is Featured Article material. -- Wikipedical 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Although I'm a fan of the show and sometimes contribute to the article, it's not up to FAC standards. It's far too long, contains an enormous amount of fancruft, does not cite several claims that should be cited, contains a lot of original research, and several of the external links do not follow the external link policy. Jtrost 02:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose', unbelievable levels of fancruft and original research. Andrew Levine 04:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong objection Per Jtrost and Andrew Levine. —CJ Marsicano 05:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - I love Family Guy, but this isn't close to a Featured Aticle about it. FCYTravis 19:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good, well-researched article. (Ibaranoff24 21:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Strong objection. Way too many lists and useless facts. At least fifty percent of the content of this article could be excised with no loss of valuable, pertinent information. Also, for an article of this size, and level of notoriety, two references is simply not enough. Sections are arranged with no logical or coherent order, many of which should be complete daughter articles, if not simply disregarded. RyanGerbil10 07:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose - This article doesn't do much justice to the show, too much of it is sourced from third parties and it isn't exactly the best written article on Wikipedia. Looks like most of it's contributions don't even doublecheck their information; there was a glaring episode name typo up there for a month before I finally decided to give in and edit it myself. Not impressed. CitrusC 17:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per above. Also, the images seem strangely chosen, sized, and placed. Staxringold 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. You guys never support anything cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.167 (talk • contribs) January 24, 2006
Object. Needs inline citations. Gflores ^Talk 07:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Because you all smell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.52.142.63 (talk • contribs) January 31, 2006