Talk:Back to the Pilot

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Back to the Pilot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Back to the Pilot has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 10, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animation: American / Family Guy Low‑importance

	Animation portal 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 edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Family Guy work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title change

Do not change the title back to Road to the Pilot. I've noticed that The Futon Critic has been releasing Fox's press releases faster than FoxFlash, and you may have noticed that the photo pages even have the original title intact. http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z2z55z10z5&page=2 - Jasonbres (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 3D Animation

Have there been no articles written about FG's different usage of 3D computer animation in this episode that could be incorporated into the article? I would have thought it would have been significant enough to at least make mention. (???) — al-Shimoni (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Back to the Pilot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Glimmer721 (talk · contribs) 22:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this shortly. I've never seen Family Guy, but while I've never reviewed any of its articles I've reviewed many other episode articles. The main reason I chose this one is because I am very interested in time travel. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The fact the episode was announced at Comic-con is not important enough to be in the lead.
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The family continually pauses for cutaways..." What are cutaways? I assume it was something common in the early days of animating Family Guy, but I looked up the word and the definitions did not match. Is there a page you could link it to?
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Stewie finds Brian and the two then attempt to return to the present, but find that the transportation device's batteries are running low and moved only a bit forward in time." Moved a bit forward from the time they are in or the time they are trying to go to?
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does the previous episode (used as the ref) support the statement that Bianchi directed the episode shortly after the ninth production season? Ditto with the fact Ron Jones has worked on the show since its inception and the fact Warbuton and Viener were "recurring voice actors".
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meg is overlinked in the production section. Not to mention I've delinked Seth McFarlane twice in the reception section.
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mila Kunis replaced Chabert as Meg, but she had a role in The 70's show during the first season. Is this trying to imply that Kunis was Meg after the first season? And Chabert then left after the first season because of schoolwork?
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The episode's ratings increased slightly from the previous week's episode..." By how much?
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Identify that it is the A.V. Club reviewer who called it "an episode of Family Guy that rewards every viewer who liked the show in the past".
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact the Daily Mail is "a British right-wing tabloid" needs a reference; it is not neutral to say that without, because it implies (to me, anyway) that the episode is being defended because this was a silly source. "British tabloid" would be more neutral.
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalize/wikilink Holocaust?
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can the Time magazine's writer "continue" on from the Daily Mail?
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the Entertainment Weekly criticism reported just what the Daily Mail said? It is a little repetative. I don't recommend removing it but instead say something like "Entertainment Weekly also thought the show had gone too far with the reference".
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Name the writers of the reports in Entertainment Weekly and Deadline.
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the image really represents the episode well. After all, it is from the first episode (according to the caption). An image of Stewie interacting with his past self may be more appropriate and fitting. We cannot see the contrast between the animation styles well. The animation style is not discussed in the production section like the fair-use rationale says.
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else that could be added to the production section?
- Done. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. I'll place this on hold. I believe the article should pass once these issues have been fixed.

Your concerns have been addressed. Gage (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better now and that new image illustrates both the time travel element and the animation style better than I envisioned it to. Great job! I will pass this. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Back to the Pilot. 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/20130214070749/http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/08/06/seth_macfarlane_missed_9_11_flight to http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/08/06/seth_macfarlane_missed_9_11_flight

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]