I've done extensive work on the Family Guy article - a lot of cruft removal and the like (two sections, "Continuity" and "Cutaways," were combined into "Structural and comedic approach"). Still, I know there's still quite a lot of work to be done, particularly within the extremely sloppy "History" section (I had to smash together two sections of nearly identical topic). If there are any specific problems there or elsewhere within the article, just point 'em out - or, maybe, if anyone else out there could help with the article itself, I'd much appreciate it. Thanks! Captain Yesterday 28 June 2005 05:20 (UTC)
Would like to see the controversy section organized more concisely-- Will2k June 28, 2005 17:18 (UTC)
The "Revival efforts" section uses three different referencing styles. Try converting to just one, preferably the footnote referencing style. - Cedars 29 June 2005 10:09 (UTC)
I've done extensive work on the Family Guy article - a lot of cruft removal and the like (two sections, "Continuity" and "Cutaways," were combined into "Structural and comedic approach"). Still, I know there's still quite a lot of work to be done, particularly within the extremely sloppy "History" section (I had to smash together two sections of nearly identical topic). If there are any specific problems there or elsewhere within the article, just point 'em out - or, maybe, if anyone else out there could help with the article itself, I'd much appreciate it. Thanks! Captain Yesterday 28 June 2005 05:20 (UTC)
Would like to see the controversy section organized more concisely-- Will2k June 28, 2005 17:18 (UTC)
The "Revival efforts" section uses three different referencing styles. Try converting to just one, preferably the footnote referencing style. - Cedars 29 June 2005 10:09 (UTC)