Talk:I Never Met the Dead Man

GA nomination

The GA nomination was incomplete, so I added the template to this page on behalf of User:Pedro thy master, who nominated the article on 4 May. I'll now be reviewing the article.--BelovedFreak 16:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:I Never Met the Dead Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 16:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Looks ok now, a copyedit still recommended.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Issues resolved.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Issues resolved.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Ok.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Looks stable.

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Prose and MoS

Some serious work needed on prose. As it's not a long article, this shouldn't be too big a problem to sort out. Some WP:MOS issues too. I'll work through each section. Some of these points are more minor.

Overall

• Overlinking! Common words do not need to be linked; only link words that will add to the understanding of the subject. Please look at each of the following and decide if they're really necessary:
  • animated
  • comedy series
  • broccoli
  • television
  • race - perhaps expand to street race?
  • bribing
  • withdrawal syndrome
  • Griffin family - all the family are mentioned & linked by name; will this link really add anything?
  • full-body cast
  • King of the Hill - second time in same section
    • Done. Gage (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "The episode follows Peter as he teaches his daughter Meg how to drive, and ultimately crash..." - does he teach her to crash, or just to drive? I gather that his bad teaching causes her to crash, but this sentence is saying that he is actually teaching her to crash, which is different. If that's the case, then that's fine.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• A question based purely on my ignorance: does a satellite tower provide cable television? I always understood them to be different. If they are indeed different, then this is a little unclear in this article as both are mentioned. Otherwise, just ignore this point!
• "Peter begins to go insane..." - is the word insane actually used in the episode? Does he feel that he's going "insane"? It's a vague word really, and means different things to different people. It can also cover a wide range of feelings and behaviours depending on who's using the word, so is not very clear. This is a small point but perhaps a better word could be found.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• The lead does not comply with the MOS because at the moment, it does not adequately summarise the rest of the article. (WP:LEAD) I know that the production and reception sections are not long, but they could do with more than one sentence each in the lead, and the cultural references section is not summarised at all.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Remember also that the lead shouldn't mention anything not expanded on later on, so the release / airing of the episode needs to be mentioned somewhere.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Plot

• Please specify that Lois is Peter's wife.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "which later causes her to fail her driving test the next day." - we don't need "later" and "the next day".
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Please spell out Department of Motor Vehicles (especially for your non-US readers)
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "On their way home from the DMV, Peter notices, while driving, that..." - this is almost a redundancy and could be worded better. Something like As Peter drives them home from the DMV he notices that...
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "Causing him to become distracted, he crashes..." → Distracted, he crashes
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "Panicing" - spellcheck?
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "Peter convinces Meg to take the fall" - "take the fall" is informal. It could possibly be used, in quotation marks, if these are the actual words he uses, otherwise would be better reworded.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "Lois becomes furious at Peter for placing the blame" - either Lois becomes furious with Peter for placing the blame or Lois becomes furious at Peter's placing the blame
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "she rats out Peter as the one" - again, "rats out" is too informal
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "...causing the town to turn on him instead. In an attempt to save Peter..." - it's not clear what she is "saving" him from. Are the townspeople coming after him? Physically attacking him? Are they just bad mouthing him? Has he just lost his reputation? If so, "saves" may be too strong.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "Inspired by the speech, Peter takes it to heart, dragging the family..." - bit of redundancy here. What about Inspired by the speech, Peter drags the family
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "dragging the family to one activity after another, causing the family..." - repetition of "family" could be avoided.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "...become extremely exhausted." - "exhausted" doesn't need to be qualified by "extremely". It's one of those ones where you either are or you aren't.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "Once the family can no longer keep up with him, Peter decides to go off..." - this whole sentence needs to be clearer. Why's Shatner turned up, is there any explanation for that? Try to reword it to something along the lines of The family can no longer keep up with Peter and when William Shatner appears on their doorstep, Peter decides to go to a nearby festival with him. It's hard to think what exactly to put here, not having seen the episode, but it needs to be a bit clearer somehow.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "Stewie's weather machine causes a huge rainstorm, causing Meg..." - repetition of "cause"; can it be avoided? This sentence should perhaps be split anyway. How about something like Meanwhile, Stewie's weather machine creates a huge rainstorm. While Meg is practicing driving, the storm causes her to accidentally hit Shatner and Peter, killing Shatner and hospitalizing Peter.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Production

• First sentence... well, it needs to be reworded because it doesn't make sense. I'll attempt a suggestion, although I may be missing the point of the sentence somehow: "I Never Met the Dead Man" is the second episode of the first season of Family Guy and the first for writer Chris Sheridan, who later became the show's executive producer. It was directed by former King of the Hill director Michael Dante DiMartino, also in his first Family Guy episode. Is this kind of what you meant?
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about the next sentence at all. I don't see how DiMartino going on to another show is directly relevant to this Family Guy episode. (see GA criterion no. 3b)
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "In interviews and on the DVD commentary of season one, MacFarlane explained..." - you don't need to mention the interviews & commentary, just start with "MacFarlane..."
• "MacFarlane explained..." - why explained? What explanation is needed. It almost looks like this sentence is explaining why they were lent an office. Just have "MacFarlane said..." You don't have to worry about finding creative ways to say "said"; the vast majority of the time "said" is the most neutral word to use, and the least noticeable.
  • Done, reworded it. Gage (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "MacFarlane later explained..." - same thing. In fact, here you could say The team later dropped the naming convention
  • Done. Gage (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Are there any guest stars in the episode? You should probably mention Seth MacFarlane playing Shatner here, rather than the next section.
  • Done. No idea why it was removed. Gage (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references

• This section looks very "choppy" and reads like a disjointed list.
  • Done, better organized it and expanded slightly.
• "Lois spots Stewie in the yard, playing with a toy Sesame Street phone, featuring the voice of Ernie, who then appears on the other end of the phone." - it's hard to visualise what's going on here. Presumably it's a toy phone that appears to have the voice of Ernie on the other end. Does the "real" Ernie then appear?
  • No, it is only his voice. Fixed.
• "Once Meg asks her mother..." → When Meg asks her mother; end the sentence after "take her driving instead."
• Peter refuses in order to continue watching an episode of Star Trek. Actor William Shatner, (MacFarlane), then appears on the screen. (assuming you've already mentioned MacFarlane above.) Is this all there is to say about Star Trek references? The review cited seems to say that there are several, and isn't Shatner appearing, and subsequently being killed, more significant than him just appearing on television? Maybe you could expand on this a little.
  • Shatner appears at the beginning of the episode on the Griffin family's television in an actual episode of Star Trek. This appearance is seperate from his actual physical appearance later in the episode when he is killed.
• "Going to the Drunken Clam, Brian implies..." - is this definitely an implication, or does he say it directly?
  • Done, reworded. Gage (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "Brian recounts Peter's attempt at giving up candy, having been unable to do so once he visited Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, and turned round and blue, in a similar fashion to Violet Beauregarde." - this sentence could be a little clearer. Who is he recounting the tale to? It's unclear why he turned round and blue. Is there a way of explaining this a bit more without getting too off track, in case readers aren't familiar with Willy Wonka?
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "spots two women talking over lunch, suggesting it is the television station Lifetime." - at first, I was going to ask for a citation here, because I didn't realise it was Peter making the suggestion. Could this be clearer? eg. Peter walks around town and, when he spots two women talking over lunch, suggests that he is watching the television station Lifetime.; also, why is Lifetime in italics?
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Is James Woods high school a real high school? Is there any reason to name it? Could it be the "local high school"? Otherwise, as the reader, I'm left wondering the significance. Can you find any WP:RS coverage of these cultural references with which you could add to this section with context / analysis?
  • James Woods High School is the only school continually referenced in the series. An entire episode is even based on the name, entitled Peter's Got Woods. Gage (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Try to avoid the repetition of the word "suggest" in these few sentences.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Reception

• "Reviews of the episode were highly positive..." - highly positive? I don't think "highly" is necessary, and it's a bit peacock-y. Also, perhaps not 100% accurate (more later).
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "calling the episode calling it"
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "proclaiming it one of the best episodes" - "proclaiming" is a bit dramatic.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "in the entire series..." - just say in the series; "entire" is unnecessary
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Please mention the fact that Brian is a dog, given the fact that you're discussing him sitting in a non-anthropomorphic way.
  • Done, I think that part was removed. Gage (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

References

• Dates are written inconsistently with both Month Day, Year and yyyy-mm-dd being used. They need to be made consistent and I would suggest the former style as the ISO format can be confusing (allowing months & dates to be mixed up).
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Ref no. 1: Why is this in italics? Is this a DVD commentary? I presume not, but a commentary is mentioned earlier, and doesn't seem to be cited. Is there any more info available for this citation?
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Ref no. 2: This book title should be in italics. HarperCollins should be linked
  • Removed ref as there was really no significance to having it.
• Ref no. 3: Not sure that this ref is necessary for the reasons mentioned above. If it's used though, Animation World Network needs a link.
  • Removed ref. Gage (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Ref no. 4: Again, probably not needed, but I'm not sure what it provides anyway. Has the link changed, or do you have to click on something to get to the bit that backs up the info in this article?
  • Are you referring to the IGN article about the Paley Fest? Sorry, I went through and added other references before notice Pedro had nominated this article. Gage (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Ref no. 5: Video not available. (plus, Yahoo shouldn't be in italics, should be linked)
  • Removed and replaced. Gage (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Ref no. 6: Needs author & date. "ING" should be "IGN" and linked. The publisher is News Corporation.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Ref no. 7: Same as no. 5 (although, if still able to be used, Yahoo shouldn't be linked this time)
  • Replaced. Gage (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Ref no. 8: Needs full date. De-link IGN (due to it being linked above), add publisher
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Ref no. 9: Same as for no. 8
  • No date was given, if I remember correctly. Gage (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Ref no. 10: Dead link. Bare URL would need fixing.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Factually accurate/verifiable

A few problems here.

Lead

• I'm not sure why there's a citation in the lead. The plot is not particularly contentious or controversial, and is referenced later on.
  • Done.
• "and many cultural references" - does that review specifically praise the cultural references? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it didn't seem to to me. It does mention the cultural references, and praises the episode overall, but I'm not sure that it specifically praises it for it's cultural references.
  • Done, reworded. Gage (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references

• The bit about Ernie is not cited.
  • Done, went to commentary and found it, used that as reference. Gage (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• The bit about Willy Wonka etc is not mentioned in the cited source.
  • Same as above. Gage (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Reception

• "Reviews of the episode were highly positive" - is this accurate? There are two reviews mentioned here. one is positive, and one, apparently, is "slightly less positive". It's not clear exactly how "less positive" that second review is, and I can't check, but based on the evidence here, "reviews" were not highly positive. Now, the link for the second review is dead, but I'm not sure that it's a particularly reliable source. What exactly is Bob's Poetry Magazine, and how/why is it reliable? If it's not, then you're down to one review. if you can't find any others, you certainly can't talk about reviews (plural) being positive. you'll have to make it clear that you're talking about one review. Obviously, it would be better if you can find any more reviews.
  • No other reviews exist. Reworded the sentences. Gage (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• "calling it "elaborate [and] creative." - this implies that the quote is about the episode, but it's not; it's about Stewie's plan. It can still be used, as it's the relevant episode, but make it clear that it's that particular bit of the episode being described.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

On hold

I'm placing the article on hold for seven days so that these issues can be addressed. Most importantly, the prose needs to be improved as it's not currently "reasonably well written", the lead needs a little expansion, and problems with references need to be sorted to ensure the article meets WP:V. I haven't actually made any changes to the article, even minor ones, as I want you to be aware of the problems that currently exist. I'll be happy to help later if needed.--BelovedFreak 18:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Pass comments

Thanks for the work you've put into this, despite not being the original nominator. I've done a slight copyedit. I see you've changed some of the content, but it appears to meet GA criteria now. I still highly recommend a copyedit from someone independent (preferably someone not familiar with the show). And in future, please, please don't put apostrophes in decades! A small MOS issue perhaps, but one of my pet hates! Anyway, good work; I'll pass it now.--BelovedFreak 20:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Gage (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Never Met the Dead Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615061924/http://tv.yahoo.com/episode/1544/castcrew to http://tv.yahoo.com/episode/1544/castcrew

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)