Talk:I'll See You in Court

Article assessment
I have rated this article as B-class. You cover the 3 important parts for articles on Tv episodes (plot, response and production). I think it's ready for peer review and then on to FA or GA nomination. I have rated it as low importance because individual episode articles are not of high importance to the project as a whole. --Opark 77 10:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The references need to be formatted in more depth. Use the citation templates so give a better guide to what should be included. It will not reach GA like this. Technically, the first ref (and IMDb, for that matter) isn't a reliable source, but the lack of anything better (i.e. a source that knows that the past tense of 'broadcast' is 'broadcast', and not 'broadcasted') might mean you can get away with it. The JPS talk to me  17:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the tip! Cheers, CP 17:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review
Sounds like a cool episode, i'll look it up. Anyway:
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Major problem, the first and most important reference is dead. Maybe there's a copy of whatever was there, somewhere. So i'll put this on hold for a week, if you address this sooner just contact me and i'll pass the article.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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:

On a side note: A third concern was that the entire punchline of the episode, that the length of Al's performance prevented the Bundys from claiming any money, was considered an unacceptable revelation for the airwaves, i would put what's in italics on so as to eliminate the second that and avoid repetition. Yamanbaiia 21:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC) ✅ Cheers, CP 22:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, holy crap! After 10 years, why did Bundyology have to disappear now??? I will try and see if there's another source... Cheers, CP 21:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the URL with a copy at the Wayback Machine. Hopefully this is acceptable. The JPS talk to me  22:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, you beat me to it by like two minutes! But yes, thank you.... luckily it was in the archives! Cheers, CP 22:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the reference, everything's there. GA status obtained! Nice (and fast) work! Yamanbaiia 22:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! Cheers, CP 00:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, M ASEM 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

confusion over civil/criminal charges
The ploy summary shows quite a bit of confusion over the difference between a criminal proceeding and a civil proceeding. For example, excerpts like "want to press charges against the Hop-On-Inn" and "Steve... decides to act as the prosecutor" (as opposed to "the plaintiff's attorney") imply that the protagonists want to have the owners of the hotel charged with a crime in a criminal proceeding, *whereas* items such as "make money from the incident," "Peggy convinces Al to sue the motel," and "not wanting a lawyer to take any of the million dollars he expects from winning the case" imply that they merely wish to sue the hotel owners in civil court. In the real world of US jurisprudence, you don't do both simultaneously.

I have not seen the episode, so I do not know whether this confusion is contained within the show itself (eg, perhaps the show really does refer to Steve as the "prosecutor"), or whether it is the fault of a confused WP editor. If the former, some mention of it should be made. If the later, the plot summary needs to be rewritten. In any case, this article should have never passed GA review. 68.73.84.231 (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review of the article. As it is a comedy show, it's very likely that they did not care too much to follow the reality of United States law; after reviewing the transcript, however, which was available as the first among the references, it is ambiguous on the issue. For that reason, I have made the changes that you have suggested.


 * If you have any further concerns with this, or any, article please bring them up on the talk page or, better yet, be WP:BOLD and make those changes yourself. As far as I can tell, the entire plot summary does not need to be rewritten based on these two mistakes, but as law is neither my specialty nor my interest, there may have been more than I missed. Please remember, however, to be civil in all your commentary; calling editors "confused" based off a minor mistake (minor relevant to the article, not real U.S. law), which was in turn probably based off the fact that I had to rewrite the entire plot summary from a far worse version, is not acceptable here. The golden standard here is to comment on the content, not the contributors. Thanks and Cheers, CP 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh do shut up. Calling someone confused is hardly an insult.76.226.117.178 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)