Talk:Back to the Woods (Family Guy)

Plot summary

Some sources say that this episode involves James Woods stealing Peter's identity and Peter attempting to ruin his career. Other sources say that James Woods tries to kill Peter (and Brian), prompting the Griffins to run for their lives. Never until this article have I seen these summaries together. My point is that until the episode airs, there is no way of knowing if both of these occurances will appear in this episode and, if so, when they will occur; in other words, we must rely on the official sources to get an idea of what the episode will be about before it airs. Immblueversion (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

what sources say he is going to kill peter? granted that might happen, but I believe we should stick with the official press release by fox about the identity stealing. Grande13 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, I don't even think that the whole "James Woods tries to kill Peter" thing is really on any official source, but rather fan speculation. I just saw it on the wikia site of Family Guy, though it never says where it found that information. Immblueversion (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

More episode information revealed

It was revealed on the site Spoiler TV that James Woods steals his identity and family after finding Peter's wallet, which was lost at a Barry Manilow concert. Also, Manilow guest stars as himself. Immblueversion (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That maybe, but I would stick to the FOX press release. There the ones airing the show. But, the again, who knows Toolazy21 (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

According to tv.yahoo.com, James Woods does steal Peter's wallet, and said wallet is indeed connected to Barry Manilow somehow.

But are we so impatient we can't just wait for the episode to air before we start shooting off our mouths? Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

We need to stop guessing about what's happening. Barry Manilow is connected, but who knows how. Cromulent Kwyjibo is right. We need to wait until it actually airs.Toolazy21 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FGBackToTheWoods.jpg

Image:FGBackToTheWoods.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

9/11 spoof

Isn't it the same as the Postal teaser?--Svetovid (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New Footage?

The Fox promos for the next showing of this episode are saying that there will be "never-befor-seen footage." And Adult Swim hasn't aired this episode, but they did air Play it Again, Brian, the episode after this one. Am I the only one who finds this strange? I understand taking stuff out for PC reasons after the episode aired (taking out the Twin Towers out of the "You've Got a lot to See" musical number), but puting stuff in? Are they airing the Adult Swim version for some unknown reason? Or did Seth Mac and the other staff diddn't exactly finish their editing job, and they went back and fixed it up? Any thoughts?--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way, we need a breakdown of what's different in the new version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There are some edited out things, and in the new one, for example, there is the 2 girls one cup reaction thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.174.233 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Strike

Shouldn't we mention that this episode was originaly suppused to air during the srike, but it ended, so the producers were able to edit it, and it was the first episode to air after the strike?--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Back to the Woods (Family Guy)/GA1. 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)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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:

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.