# Talk:Three Kings (Family Guy)


### Three or 3
The poster says that its the number "3" and not the word "three"...--NiveKJ13 (talk2me) 13:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think someone needs to remove the "as usual" comments on the Parents Television council references.   It's obviously meant to demean the group  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpshaw (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 

 Done CTJF83Talk 17:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
And I don't think the PTC needs to be in this (or any) article at all. It's some two-bit operation run out of someone's garage, not any sort of reputable or widely read publication. It's merely a fundamentalist propaganda machine. Unigolyn (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The prison worker with wooden arms and legs is most likely a reference to another of Stephen King's Works The Mangler.  In which the character William 'Bill' Gartley, who is in charge of the laundry cleaning company, is similarly crippled. (I'm just not sure exactly how to word this into the article)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.6.134 (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 

You can't. "Most likely" doesn't count for squat. --Captain Infinity (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm not exactly in the head of the writers so I don't know if using the peg legged and armed character from family guy in a role similar to that of the character in The Mangler was purposeful or a coincidence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.104.11 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Three Kings (Family Guy)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
In the Production section, this sentence reads odd ---> "...writer Stephen King was approached by the Family Guy for the production team to create the episode". Do you mean something like this ---> "...writer Stephen King was approached by the Family Guy production team to create the episode, and obtain his written permission to create it".
Done. Gage (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Check.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
File:FGThreeKings.jpg needs a lower resolution.
Half-check.
Sorry, skipped this one, but done now. Gage (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Check.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Not that much to do. If the above query can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns have been addressed. Gage (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you to Gage for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Three Kings (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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514060144/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/11/sunday-ratings-abc-wins-but-desperate-housewives-hits-series-low/18430 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/11/sunday-ratings-abc-wins-but-desperate-housewives-hits-series-low/18430
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090519211650/http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/bw/2009/0515worst.asp to http://parentstv.org/PTC/publications/bw/2009/0515worst.asp
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) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)