Talk:Long John Peter

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Long John Peter 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

Long John Peter 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
June 22, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

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 (assessed as Low-importance).

Animation: American / Television / 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 Animated television work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Family Guy work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

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.

As much as the promos hyped the Pirate angle, it only got like 3 minutes of screen time. It was almost a footnote for the episode. Also, that dead frog gag committed the usual Family Guy sin of milking a one-off situation gag far, far, far too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.191.133.190 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

What was that song, if it was one that plays at the end on the Busy Businesslady Whose Life Is Missing Something But She Can't Figure Out What Because She's So Busy With Business scene? Sarujo (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas the opening piano riff from 'Clocks' by Coldplay BMHBrown (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Parrot[edit]

Don't we need a cultural reference to Monty Pythons flying Circus? the dead parrot seams like a dead give away. Although it would have been better of someone had mentioned he might be resting, or commented on the beautiful plumage. What do you think? Is a mere dead parrot enough to be reference to MPFC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.2.167 (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kept waiting for an obvious nod to MPFC, but it never came (legal issues?), so I don't think a 'cultural reference' is called for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.75.201 (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship[edit]

"A short yet distasteful joke about possible sex with a 12 year old girl is included in both the adult swim version and the regular version."

I have removed this line from the censorship section since it is an opinion that was probably put in by someone who wanted their distaste for the joke known. Also, it is not necessary to mention a joke which appeared in all versions of the show in a section about what was removed from some versions. -- Lynch2007 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Well done.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
~~In the Cultural references section, italicize "Full Metal Jacket" as it is a film.~~
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:FGLongJohnPeter.jpg needs a lower resolution.~~

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and actually, I went ahead and removed the Full Meal Jacket cultural reference, as it was strangely unreferenced, though the rest is fine now. Gage (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check [on both]. 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) 18:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Gage (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Long John Peter. 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/20080510095338/http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/ratings-chart-attack/2008/05/somethings_eating_at_simpsons.php to http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/ratings-chart-attack/2008/05/somethings_eating_at_simpsons.php

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 20:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Amanda Bynes on the Red Carpet (cropped2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]