Talk:Just Say Yes (Ted)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 09:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Scott Grimes

• ... that while auditioning for the first episode of Ted, Scott Grimes (pictured) was told to "[think of] All in the Family"?

• Source: https://www.thewrap.com/ted-scott-grimes-all-in-the-family-peacock/

• • Reviewed:

Moved to mainspace by Crystal Drawers (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Crystal Drawers (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC).

• New enough and long enough. Nominator is QPQ-exempt. Hook fact is in article and reasonably interesting (needed adjustment in hook presentation as the quote includes brackets from source). Image is appropriately licensed for Main Page use. Good to go. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Crystal Drawers and Sammi Brie: I have no idea what this hook is trying to get at, and I doubt many non-Americans would either. Could we have a couple of ALTs suggested? (Also, the hook fact doesn't need to be in the lead per WP:LEADREL, but that's beyond DYK's purview.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    • @AirshipJungleman29: Sure, here’s one I think could work
    • ALT1: ... that actress Alanna Ubach had to audition several times for the first episode of Ted?
    • Source: https://www.thewrap.com/ted-cast-auditions-max-burkholder-alanna-ubach-seth-macfarlane-peacock/ Crystal Drawers (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

ALT1 implies there was something wrong with Ubach's first audition, which feels unduly negative.--Launchballer 13:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Does it really? I never thought of ALT1 as negative, and there doesn't seem to be any context in the hook that suggests it is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Auditions are usually unsuccessful for a reason, though I'm probably not going to hold this up for that reason.--Launchballer 14:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I'm sorry, I didn’t receive notifications about these replies for some reason and just randomly stumbled upon them. I don’t think her having to audition a few times insinuates her doing a poor job, but if needed I can rephrase it. Maybe to

• ALT2: …that actress Alanna Ubach had to audition several times to ensure she was right for the part of Susan for the first episode of Ted?

This might still hold the same issue, so let me know if it’s still not sufficient :) Crystal Drawers (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Alanna Ubach

Also, there’d need to be a new main page image since the old one is of another actor, so I think the one seen here is good Crystal Drawers (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Please note that if a picture does not appear in the article, it cannot be used as part of a hook. Neither the Grimes nor Ubach images are in the nominated article, so they are not currently eligible for this DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• This nomination times out in two days. Are there any other issues apart from the lack of a review and the images issue? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5, the nomination was originally reviewed by Sammi Brie; all this seems to be waiting on is a review of ALT2. I don't understand Launchballer's contention that auditioning a number of times is a negative if the person ultimately got the role: multiple auditions (multiple callbacks) are a regular feature of casting, particularly if you have to get buy-in from multiple levels of management, schedule chemistry reads with already-cast actors, and so on. However, since they're the one effectively blocking the nom, they really need to chime in at this point. It would be a shame for this to be closed under the circumstances. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

In that case, I withdraw my objection.--Launchballer 02:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

In which case, the article will need to be modified as ALT2's wording is currently not supported. @Crystal Drawers: Please include the mentions of multiple auditions in the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it not supported by the article already? The article mentions that she sent in audition tapes, went in for an audition (which is labeled as a chemistry read), and then was asked to do so again. I don’t see how that doesn’t support the alt @Narutolovehinata5: Crystal Drawers (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The article does not directly say that she auditioned multiple times, only that she sent in multiple tapes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the article mentions going on two separate occasions for chemistry reads; the source quotes Ubach as saying these reads being a couple of months apart (and she'd thought she hadn't gotten the part when she hadn't heard back sooner). However, there are only those two in-person auditions mentioned for her, so "several", while technically correct (as it can be as few as two), isn't ideal. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It's still not clear from the article that the chemistry reads were supposed to be the "multiple auditions", so a reword would probably still be needed anyway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The best I could think of is:

• ALT3: …that actress Alanna Ubach, after sending in audition tapes for the first episode of Ted, was asked to audition twice more in person?

This is the best way I could think of rewording it, but I’m worried it may come off a bit awkwardly worded. Please let me know of any further issues :) — Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Was there anything else wrong with ALT1, other than the concern I withdrew?--Launchballer 20:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, the article did not directly state that she "auditioned multiple times". Honestly, I don't think ALT3 is that interesting, ALT1 was better had it been accurate. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Given the backlog and a lack of agreement on a suitable hook, I'm marking this for closure per WP:DYKTIMEOUT (it turned two months old a couple of days ago). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Just Say Yes (Ted)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Crystal Drawers (talk · contribs) 14:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Olliefant (talk · contribs) 17:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the review @Olliefant:, all have been addressed and done Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 21:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• Add a MDY dates template  Done
• Link CGI  Done
• [fantasy] [comedy] [series] [Ted] MOS:SOB  Done

Plot

• "Following a recap of the first movie's events," not really relevent  Done
• Delink "bribe"  Done
• Delink "having an affair"  Done

Production

• "All in the Family" whats that?  Done
• Unclear what "tapes" means for someone unfamiliar with the term  Done

Linked to videotape

• "given the roles after" what roles?  Done
• "writer Paul Corrigan" was he a staff writer? Its unclear as its stated McFarlen wrote the episode  Done

He is a staff writer

Release and reception

• "Accolades" is too short to be its own section  Done
• Link "Ted Cinematic Universe" to Ted (franchise)  Done

References

• Spot checks found nothing
• Linking is inconsistent  Done
• "ScreenRant" -> "Screen Rant"  Done

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.