This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Peter plans on using a parodie of
Adolf Hitler's speech to exterminate all
Jews. However, they can't do that because Carter gets a call from
Fox News that they own the rights of Hitler's likeliness and won't have him slambered.
There may be a referance to Orson Welles' advertising for Norwegian fish. Peter is advertising for White Castle Burgers, but talks about how pointless it is to use dope, as if it was pointless to do the advert. Orson Welles made an advert for Norwegian fish, but started to complain of how lengthy it was for taking 30 seconds of his time. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
83.108.31.250 (
talk)
00:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)reply
To persuade Brian, Carter tries to give him a night out with
Oprah Winfrey.
Wondering what it would take to get this article up to Good status. Looking at other Good Family Guy articles, it appears the addition of the 'Cultural references' section with proper sources (see above) and a 'Production' section are needed. With the addition of those, and perhaps a bit of expansion in the 'Ratings and reception' section, this article should be able to obtain Good status. --
Another Believer(
Talk)19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Twice now, edits have been made regarding the re-airing of this episode and its delay due to the death of Michael Jackson. I do feel this could be relevant, but is there a reliable, third-party source that discusses this? If not, I don't think it should be included in the article. Any thoughts? --
Another Believer(
Talk)16:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Well, that's what I am questioning. With edits being made to the article, clearly some people find this to be importance. However, I cannot find any reliable sources mentioning the delay, so I am not certain it is notable. However, should reliable sources exist, it might be worth noting simply because it is an event directly relating to this specific episode. If consensus concludes that delaying an episode due to a joke presented within the episode (relating to the death of a major celebrity) is not notable, then I certainly respect that and would not be bothered by not including the "controversy". Just thought I would bring it up since the article currently mentions it, even though there is no source for the information. --
Another Believer(
Talk)20:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't think it is notable, unless the American premiere of the episode was delayed. The last two mentions of the UK delay were added by IPs. I say remove it unless there is notability and a consensus to keep a sourced statement on the delay. CTJF83Talk21:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Without a reliable source, its not article content. Depending on the source, and content of the source, I could easily be convinced to include it. --
The Red Pen of Doom23:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
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.
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. I'll give it a read through now and add points below as I see them. If theres any straight forward copyedits needed, I'll make them as I go through, but obviously if I inadvertently change something important, please feel free to revert.
Miyagawa(talk)19:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Review:Plot: First line - is it possible to rephrase the second appearance of "friend" as it seems a bit repetitive.
Production: Could you re-work the first paragraph, and it comes over a bit like a list of the production crew with the line breaks removed.
Production: Second paragraph - seems set up at the end for a quote, but there isn't one.
I disagree with Miyagawa; there are still some issues in the article that need to be adressed. For example, just by reading the Production section, I found the following:
Aside from mentioning the obligatory director and writer of the episode, the first paragraph in the Production section also mentions producers, supervising directors, co-executive producers etc. Remember, Wikipedia is not IMDB. Just listing executive producers and supervising directors etc is pretty redundant and doesn't add to the understanding as to how the episode was produced. Besides, the paragraph's source, Film.com, is a dead link.
The third paragraph is about the episode's DVD release. The DVD release of an episode should either be in its own section (titled Merchandising), or you could put it in Reception and rename the section to Release and Reception.
The last paragraph uses a dead link.
So, I'm sorry to say, the only paragraph in the section that holds up is the second, which has the DVD commentary as its source. Commentaries are usually valuable sources of information for episode articles, so I encourage you to listen to it again so you can write more in the Production section.
Queenieacoustic (
talk)
11:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Reception:
You need to explain the ratings (the first numbers) and shares (second numbers) of the Nielsen rating.
It seems a bit redundant to point out that the King of the Hill episode received a B, since you've already pointed out it tied with 420, which received a B. Also, the episode could use one more review.
Queenieacoustic (
talk)
12:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
In agreement with the points raised by Queenieacoustic, those will need to be addressed as well - particulary the lack of real production information. If you take a look at other episode GA's, I'm sure you'll find a number of examples of what should be in there.
Miyagawa(talk)12:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I tried to find different sources for the Production section, but I kept on finding bad information, and some of the sites didn't even have information for the episodes cast and crew; the sites that did have cast and crew information had that of the entire series, which we don't want. I may need some reliable source examples. Other than that, I'm working hard on the other sections.
Railer-man (
talk)
21:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I strongly recommend you listen to the episode's DVD commentary, since it does mention several notable things, including how the whole cannabis song came together. If you don't have it, I could write you a transcript.
Queenieacoustic (
talk)
17:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm going to fail this article on it's Good Article Nomination for the time being and leave it to the editors involved above to work the article up and renominate at a suitable time.
Miyagawa(talk)20:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)reply
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.
Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. There are a few problems with prose and only one major problem (discussed in general comments section)
Specific comments
"the day before 4/20" Should be written in prose, April 20, maybe with brackets notifying the 420 reference.
"centers on anthropomorphic dog Brian's" seems clunky, needs rewording, take out anthropomorphic dog.
"from baby Stewie" Do we really need these clarifying terms this late into the episode articles? Just Stewie would do.
"he recently adopted and named James and prefers to spend more time with him than with them." All needs rewording for grammar.
"kills him with a straight razor." Kills "it" to save confusion.
"hide his body" ... hide its body.
"use the urine of Stewie" Stewie's urine, surely?
In production "episode for the season" episode of the season
"staff writers have planned on writing out the character." Needs a tense change, had planned on writing out the character.
The first reference's link needs changing so that it lands on the correct page displaying 420.
The Yahoo! source looks a bit dodgy, should be replaced with something more reliable.
General comments
The cultural references section reads like a list of miscellaneous events! These should be integrated into the production section (under its own section), with a more officious style of writing, and the original section should be removed.
Quite a few prose issues and the main reason the MoS failed is because of the Cultural references section which just reads like a bunch of trivia slammed into a section, that bit needs a lot of work if this article is to be passed, everything else is just small-time corrections need to be made, then this article is go.
Removed {{Good article}}. The article does not meet criterion for Good article status. The plot section has no references. Per good article criterion, good articles need to be "Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
I have just modified 2 external links on
420 (Family Guy). 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 2 external links on
420 (Family Guy). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
The article doesn't mention this bit; the crudely animated insert in which the man and his dog discuss weed (the conversation presented in written form rather than being spoken). Presumably this is a reference to something. If so, what?
Martyn Smith (
talk)
08:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Move to
420 (Family Guy): although the DVD says "Episode 420", "420" seems to be the name of the episode most commonly used on various distribution and on-demand platforms (e.g. BBC iPlayer, Apple TV/iTunes), on the press release, on most reviews, and on IMDB. Sceptre (
talk)
01:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I disagree. I would argue that "Episode 420" is more common. It actually is listed as
"Episode 420" on iTunes, and
Hulu and IMDB listings aren't generally accepted as sources of information on Wikipedia. I would say that the official studio-sanctioned DVD would be the most accurate source in this context. I would not be opposed to having this discussion closed in favor of debate of "Episode 420" vs. "420".
Grapesoda22 (
talk)
04:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)reply
OpposeEpisode 420 but Support420 (Family Guy), but leave it where it is if absolutely necessary. Episode 420 is overly ambiguous per IJBall. Despite there only being one Wikipedia article, you could effectively have a disambiguation page pointing to any number of episodes, being either the 420th episode of something or season 4, episode 20 of something. I don't think that's a worthwhile use of anyone's time, though. Regarding "Episode 420" being "the official studio-sanctioned" title, that may be on the DVD, but FOX themselves were inconsistent. This was their own official episode recap site at one point:
420, and others have already pointed out the initial press release. This is
WP:SYNTH, but my guess is that "420" was the original title, and then they thought "Episode 420" would be less controversial, maybe even specifically for DVD release. Looking at
TVGuide archives, it looks like "Episode 420" only started seeing use sometime after 2015 and before 2017. Seems to make sense with contemporary reviews/articles/etc. using "420" per the citations in the article. Regarding what purchase/streaming options say, it looks like things are split, but I see far more "420"s. Despite "Episode 420" at iTunes and Hulu listings, all these providers (
Amazon,
Vudu,
YouTube,
Fandango,
Google Play, and
Microsoft Store) only list "420". I would second IJBall in sending
Episode 420 to RfD. -
2pou (
talk)
00:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)reply
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.