Talk:Back to the Woods (Family Guy)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 06:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Where's the production code referenced?
 * "Fox animated comedy series Family Guy that originally aired on February 17, 2008." would say "American" instead of "Fox" and then move "Fox" to the end of the sentence. The new part of the sentence would be "American animated comedy series that originally aired on the Fox network on February 17, 2008."
 * Link "Peter Griffin" upon first mention per WP:UNDERLINK
 * Per WP:MOS, add the character's actor name in brackets "", it is missing throughout the whole actor
 * "The episode was written by Tom Devanney and it was directed by" prose isn't very good there. Remove "it" from "and it", as it is repetitive
 * Upon first mention after lede, please say fully at first per WP:MOS, as "Peter Griffin" upon first time after lede
 * Same goes for "Brian Griffin", etc.
 * The full plot summary should be split into more than one paragraph please
 * "buy very expensive items" remove "very expensive" per WP:NPOV
 * Unlink "credit card" per WP:OVERLINK
 * "as Woods threatens to shoot Peter with a gun" to "as Woods threatens to murder Peter"
 * Per WP:TVPLOT, for an episode of this length, there are too many words in the full plot summary, remove unneeded details; for example, "Peter and Brian lure him into an alley with a trail of Reese's Pieces" stuff about "Reese's Pieces" could probably be let go
 * "he convinces the general public and David Letterman that he is James Woods" remove "James" from "James Woods" as first mention is already above in section per WP:MOS
 * "acted as" would suggest "served" instead
 * Per MOS:HEADING, "Cultural References" section title should be written as "Cultural references"
 * Link "James Woods" in image per WP:REPEATLINK
 * "Back To the Woods is a continuation" episode title is wrote weirdly, should wrote out as "Back to the Woods", with the "" quotation marks for episodes
 * "don't" avoid contractions
 * "enjoy" not encyclopaedia-like, please replace
 * "they had sex" again, not encyclopaedia-like, say "sexual intercourse"
 * Unlink "sex" per WP:OVERLINK
 * Why isn't the broadcast information anywhere in the article? The channel it aired on and the viewers, ratings? It needs to mentioned in both lede (a little bit per WP:LEDE) and in reception, followed by the reviews after. If these aren't added, etc., this article therefore does not meet the good article criteria
 * Don't use curly quotes like ’, use the regular ' quotation mark instead, as per MOS:PUNCT
 * The production section is overly short, and should be preferably expanded if possible, not really broad. Overall, the production and reception sections need/should be expanded.
 * "Yahoo!." avoid doubled grammar, to avoid this remove the "!", you'll have to
 * Double quotes (") should not be used in reference titles, single quotes (') should be used instead per WP:MOS
 * Ref. 8 and 9 has WP:DASH problems, hypten should be an en-dash instead
 * Don't "shout" in reference titles
 * TV.com episode external link is dead, replace or found the correct link, or simply remove, but I know it it there, just the wrong URL
 * "episode featured" should be "features", it still exists, right?
 * A big issue is that lots of this may only be familar for insiders or Family Guy fans; for example, the character's upon first mention aren't explained. The show itself isn't explained, like "Family Guy centers on ...", etc. Also, characters like "Cleveland" are mentioned without a link (the character does have one), or without being explained above, needs to be
 * "Woods's" remove last "s" there
 * WP:OVERLINK with "Late Show with David Letterman", it is linked in plot, and then again in cultural references, unlink it in cultural references section

As of right now, this article fails short of the good article criteria. In order for this article to pass the criteria, some big changes need to be made for broad coverage, WP:MOS issues, and the article's prose. In any case, you have seven days to fix all of my concerns, and I'll take another look after. Thus, I am placing the article on hold, despite the above. TBrandley 18:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It has been seven days and no issues have been addressed, and therefore I am failing this nomination. TBrandley 13:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: