Talk:Mind Over Murder

Fair use rationale for Image:FGMindOverMurder.jpg

Image:FGMindOverMurder.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit

I think I might give this article the once- or twice-over, with the intended goal of eventually getting it through GAR. You might also want to consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. There are quite a few of us copy editors looking to help articles reach GA and FA status... Bobnorwal (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Problems

This are all the little things I've noticed that could get in the way of making this a Good Article:

• The link to film.com (reference #2, at the moment) is dead. TheWayBackMachine doesn't seem to have it archived, which is a pity since it seems to be an important part of this article.
• The Chicago Sun-Times seems to have a review of this episode in their archive. This would help fill in the reception section a bit more, which the GA reviewer recommended. Too bad the article's behind a paywall... Is there any mechanism on Wikipedia to have someone else, who has a subscription, to come over and fill it in? Hm...
• The radio drama Suspense is mentioned a couple of times as an influence on this episode's title, but it seems like none of the references support this claim.
• The cultural references section mentions the Louise Woodward case. The reference, though, just says a "news item at the time". I'm afraid I am partly responsible for this original research. Though a "news item at the time" seems a bit vague, and I've yet to unearth a more specific reference.
• The fact that the song Lois sings is "You'll Never Know" could probably be moved to the cultural references section, couldn't it?
• Also, it isn't exactly essential to the article that the bar's name is "Ye Old(e) Pube" is it? :D

Bobnorwal (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mind Over Murder/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 03:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• "singing and dancing there in revealing clothing" - unclear and disjointed sentence

done

• All paragraph sentences begin with "Mind Over Murder", could they be varied up a little?

done

• Neil Goldman and Garett Donovan link to the same article, their text should constitute one link rather than 2.

done

• "in standard Family Guy fashion" sounds like a fanboy comment. Should be removed. "Much of the episode's humour is structured..."

done

• Suspense (radio program) is a redirect, should be Suspense (radio drama). This occurs again in the Production section.

done

• The last sentence of the lede should be referenced or removed, it seems unreliable and it's rather vague and uninformative, it tells us nothing of who Ahsan Haque is or which organization he represents, either expand and ref it or remove it.

done

• The image caption mentions nothing of Brian so it is unclear as to which character the "Peter" in the text refers to, incorporate Brian into the text and indicate which is left and right.

Eh. I altered it minimally. Let me know if you still want more.

• "so Peter decides to ignore Lois..." Feels tacked on as if it's been added as an afterthought. Needs copyediting.

done. Changed the preceding sentence to make this one seem more at home.

• "for his playing ability and his weight" Overly detailed. Remove it.

done

• "Peter's attempts to make this person apologize are rudely ignored." Take out that sentence. Too detailed and "this person" is too familiar. Adjusting for this, the next sentence should be changed too.

First half done... but I can't think of a better way to say "this person." I'll look into it...

• "before an adoring crowd" Perhaps not adoring, appreciative? uproarious?

done

• "Peter demands she quit singing" Peter demands that she quits singing

done. My freshman English teacher always said take out "that," as much as you can. He was very adamant about that. But I'll take your word for it!

Your English teach was correct. Generally most fiction writers (in fact writers in general) take out "that" because it improves the flow of sentences, but it does tend to make a sentence seem less grammatically correct. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 05:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• "and invites them to drag their husbands out" If I hadn't seen the episode, I wouldn't know what that sentence means.

done

• "Stewie’s time machine plans are discovered" By whom? What happened? Too vague.

Can't remember... Will have to drag out the ol' DVD collection...

done.

• "about the breach of security"? Don't understand, what breach of security? What security?

done... see above.

• "Lois tells them how she only wants" Tells them that

done

• "something to which all the other women relate" Something which all the other women relate to.

Ending a sentence with a preposition? Good God! What are we, heathens? (done)

• "and seconds before the basement bar goes up in flames" Doesn't make contextual sense.

Hmm...? I don't understand what's wrong with this, really.

• "up to when" Nonsense. Back to.

done

• "up to when Lois asks Peter" asked.

done

• Plots do not need references, the ref at the end of the last paragraph should be removed.

done

• Both the Production section and the Cultural References section begin with "Mind Over Murder". This should, again, be changed to something less repetitive.

done

• "the first time writing for the series for both" Disjointed.

I wasn't sure about that part, so I just snagged that phrase from the Production section of A Hero Sits Next Door... which is a GA. I agree it's disjointed. I'll fix it later...

done

• In the Cultural references section, the blending cutaway joke does not have an explanation as to the TV show Sesame was blended with.

It probably references Homicide: Life on the Street, but I can't find a ref for that, and I removed mention of that show to avoid original research.

I wasn't aware of that show. That isn't original research, it's more stating that a duck is a duck. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 04:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

done

• In reception: "emphasizing", not sure that's the right word, means to embolden, praising?

Google says: "em·pha·size/ˈemfəˌsīz/Verb 1. Give special importance or prominence to (something) in speaking or writing: "pounded the tabletop to emphasize his point"." What's wrong with that?

They aren't emphasizing the integration of the jokes, they're praising it in comparison to later episodes. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 04:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

done

• "55/100" should be 55%.

done

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Prose has been changed since my last review, but I'd say it is essentially of the same standard of writing, although there are admittedly fewer grammatical mistakes.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Perfic'.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): (focused):

   Yeah, it'll do length-wise.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Perfic'

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Perfic'.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Perfic'

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 03:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's late here... I'll be back tomorrow, to deal with the rest of your concerns. Bobnorwal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the problems are now resolved. Please let me know about further improvements. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good enough. GA it is! That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 12:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)