# Talk:Brian's Got a Brand New Bag

1. When Stewie's bed is wheeled out on to the lawn and the sprinklers go on, he says something about "Sheyer" - is he referring to the duke basketball player or someone else?
Shia LeBouf, maybe? --91.7.125.96 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brian's Got a Brand New Bag/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 89119 (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Generally good. Just one minor problem: I think readers who have not watched this episode might find this phrase ambiguous: "and secretly sneaks her home that night out of fear of being discovered by the Griffin family." While "the Griffin family" hints that Brian is sneaking Rita in the Griffin's residence (and not Rita's own house), I would recommend clarifying that more explicitly. i.e.: "and secretly sneaks her into the Griffin's residence that night out". Something like that.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
MoS compliant, no problems.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
It's decently sourced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Source #4, "Freakin' Sweet News" may not be reliable. It seems to be a fansite, and the only author on the source's page I see is "Brian", with no last name.
C. No original research: 
This following is currently not sourced: "a collection of deleted scenes, a special mini-feature which discussed the process behind animating "Road to the Multiverse", and mini-feature entitled Family Guy Karaoke."
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Yes.
B. Focused: 
Yes.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Yes. Although reception section may seem biased, it only presents bias from the reviewers; the section itself is not biased, which is good.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Nothing problematic based on article's history.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Lead image has a fair use tag, and the other one, the photograph of Nana Visitor, is licensed publicly. Thus, no image problems.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Lead image is used in the correct place, in the infobox, and captioned appropriately.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Overall I'm going to keep this article on hold because of the problems I noted above. Please fix those within seven days, and I'll pass as GA.
Also, this is not a GA concern, but I believe the "home release" content, about the DVD sales containing the episode, does not belong in the "Reception" section. Rather, it should go into the "Production" section. (I am trying to model my review to a Family Guy episode featured article "Road to the Multiverse".)


### Further comments
Transcluded from my talk page:

Ive removed the "Freakin' Sweet News" reference and moved the DVD release back to the Production section. The third reference covered everything the paragraph about the DVD release mentioned. Take a look! Railer-man (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Source originally not present is now added in. Unreliable source removed. That one sentence in the plot section remained unchanged, but prose isn't my strong point anyway so I have no further comments on that. 
With all that said, thanks for addressing my concerns very quickly! I will now pass the article. Congratulations! :D

Where is this section? It's included in all of the other episode articles?  — Gabe 19 (talk contribs) 10:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

So...be WP:BOLD and add one? Just ensure that whatever you add has proper sourcing, as many Cultural References sections have been or should be trimmed or deleted because they contain little more than original research. Doniago (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brian's Got a Brand New Bag. 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/20110711021928/http://www.foxinflight.com/tv/15/ to http://www.foxinflight.com/tv/15/
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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Since it has been awhile since the last assessment, I have had another look at the current version and saw the "Original research" banner at the top of the uncited "Cultural references" section. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)


### Brian's Got a Brand New Bag