Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peter Griffin/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:09, 3 April 2007.

---

Peter Griffin

Peter Griffin is a famous cartoon character. I think the article deserves to be featured. Best of all, it has no tags like POV, Cleanup, etc. TheBlazikenMaster 20:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - no in-line citations. Alientraveller 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per above, and also no references. References can easily be found - just see the dozens at the bottom of the Bulbasaur page. JameiLei 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Oh yes there are!!!!!! TheBlazikenMaster 21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are citations, but not inline citations Slof 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I've noticed the article was hurting, namely, no concept and creation section as required for fictional characters, as you can see from FAs and GAs like Padme Amidala or, more comparable in the subject matter, Homer Simpson. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Blank the article. Start over. The "Peter did this, Peter did that, Peter did this, Peter is Catholic, Peter is Jewish, Peter is a homosexual, Peter has AIDS, Peter is a genius, Peter is an idiot, Peter has been in every situation imaginable" style of this article might be good for a fan wiki, but not here. Sorry. --- RockMFR 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The "blanking the article" comment was a little insensitive and extreme RockMFR, try to be a little considerate. It does need a lot of work the information is there, good job collecting it. It just needs to be sourced thoroughly and copyedited. After this FAC, you can try the League of Copyeditors after you source it. If you're in a hurry (they usually take months to get through an article) maybe you can just read other character articles that are highly ranked and compare the article against it and go from there. Quadzilla99 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know it was idiotic of me for nominating this so early. I know getting it into good article will take almost half a year, or more. I apologise everyone for my idicy of putting it up without going through the article first. TheBlazikenMaster 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for apologizing.--Rmky87 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. This is nowhere near featured quality yet. The article goes way, way off-track with too much recapping of humorous events in episodes in order to establish trivial points, like "Peter can be sentimental at times, and also worried". In fact, the entire article consists of original analysis of Peter's character traits directly from the show, rather than based on published secondary sources: in other words, WP:OR is a problem. There may be a couple of references listed but I highly doubt they support much of the text, and without in-line citations it's not even clear what is claimed to be cited. Besides, two sources is not sufficient. The article's use of pictures stretches fair use too far - the pictures offer decoration but don't otherwise enhance the article. Image:PeterGriffin.jpg is listed as a TV screenshot but obviously is not, and none of the images have a fair use rationale, except the "too sexy for his fat" one, which has a bad, generic rationale that seems to imply it would be okay to use the image anywhere on Wikipedia relating to Family Guy. Also, the article is badly incomplete: remember, this is supposed to be an article about Peter Griffin, the character on a famous show, not a biography of the character. Who draws Peter Griffin? How has the character's portrayal changed over the course of the show? How was the character originally conceived, and by who? What has been the importance of Peter Griffin outside of the show? I wish luck to anyone willing to try to clean up this article: I'm very sympatehtic to the overwhelming force with which fans must be insterting more and more irrelevant cruft into the article. Mangojuice^talk 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.