[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/Jump to content

Talk:Road to Europe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRoad to Europe 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
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
August 12, 2011Good article nomineeListed
October 7, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
September 25, 2016Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article

a baby’s arm holding an apple

[edit]

I believe this term was popularized (and may have originated) from a circa 1960 Lenny Bruce routine that ended up in his book How to Talk Dirty and Influence People (ISBN 0-67-175108-5) — Bruce attributes the term to one of his mother's neighbors, who could have been repeating something she had heard elsewhere. The Bruce text:

Filipinos come quick; colored men are build abnormally large ("Their wangs look like a baby's arm with an apple in its fist"); ladies with short hair are Lesbians; if you want to keep your man, rub alum on your pussy.

Such bits of erotic folklore were related daily to my mother by Mrs. Janesky ...

You can find this quote in the book's description (and the excerpt) at Amazon.

The earliest use I've seen of this exact wording Stuey uses was on The Tubes's song "What Do You Want From Life", from their eponymous 1975 album.

I would guess the joke (on Family Guy) is that the rhythm and syntax of that phrase sound plausibly British to american ears. That aside, I don't consider the slang use of this term especially British (supporting link given in prior version: [1]), but I wouldn't know first-hand. I certainly hear it used in american vernacular. – edgarde 19:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (updated 21:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This phrase was used in the third Austin Powers movie, which may lead to its "Britishness", although I believe that this episode aired before that movie's release.NozeDive (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft

[edit]

Like many Family Guy articles, this contains much WP:TRIVIA that might be well-suited for the Family Guy wiki, but lacks sufficient real-world notability for Wikipedia.

Relevant essays:

Relevant guidelines:

Serious problems with most Family Guy articles:

  • Re-telling every memorable joke. This almost never works and is unencyclopedic. See WP:EPISODE#Content.
  • Spotting every time Peter Chris is drawn inconsistently. See WP:AVTRIVIA.

/ edgarde 23:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Sie werden Deutschland nicht beleidigen!”

[edit]

Why the hell does this have a "citation needed" tag, every native speaking German can tell you this is perfectly right. Removed.

Well, also those that have it as second language and have been practicing the language for so many years. TheBlazikenMaster 20:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK the "Trivia" section that was removed needs to be incorporated into the main text somehow because I actually go to this page just to look up information like that (i.e. German dialogue) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.61.202 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was the final episode produced prior to the show’s initial cancellation, though not the final one aired.

[edit]

How about Family Guy Viewer Mail? TheBlazikenMaster 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This episode has production code 3ACX13, while i believe Viewer Mail was 3ACX12. With the higher production code it just means they started on this one last. Grande13

Fair use rationale for Image:FGRoadToEurope.jpg

[edit]

Image:FGRoadToEurope.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Line about the Beer hall

I believe the Beer hall ine at the end of the scene in Munich was a reference to the Munich Beer hall Putch considering that before that they had made fun of Germanies Nazi history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.82.239 (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Don

[edit]

In the Jolly Farm Revue episode Stewie is watching just before he gets the idea to run away, Mother Maggie asks the kids what they want to be when they grow up and the third says "A Cambridge Don". To what does this refer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.203.225 (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference to one of Britain's top universities, Cambridge. A don is something like a lecturer, but is only used for the "classic" universities usually, like Cambridge. 86.160.94.194 (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative title

[edit]

I just watched the episode on BBC3 and they called it "european roadshow" so i've put in a redirect. 86.160.94.194 (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's what they're calling it right now. Should it be added to the article? –anemoneprojectors– 22:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ace and Peter

[edit]

I don't think Ace Frehley and Peter Criss provided their voices for this episode. They are not listed in the credits. Chris Cox is credited as "Guy Dressed as Ace Frehley". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.167.20 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Road to Europe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I actually saw this episode a few days ago, which is a lucky coincidence- I'm hardly FG's biggest fan.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    See below- I started to make a list, but it's clear that there are a lot of issues with the prose of this article. Just glancing down the article a little further, I noticed, for instance, a load of episode names without the necessary quote marks, and dablinks.
    B. MoS compliance:
    See above and below.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Of the eight sources cited, three look to be of very questionable reliability to me. I think I'd want to see a wider variety of sources for an article like this anyways.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    The non-free file is too big, and I'm not convinced it's the best illustration of the episode- they're not even in Europe there.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I am failing this article at this time, as I feel the shortcomings are a little much to be dealt with immediately. As a compromise, I am happy to review this straight away if it is renominated with the issues I have mentioned dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • "the FOX animated series" Why the styalised caps? "Fox" would be a little more encyclopedic.
  • "of Family Guy." Repetition
  • "British kids' show" A bit slangy
  • "a Kiss concert" Linky?
  • "much to Peter's humiliation." to Peter's embarassment would be a little more neutral. Also, can we have the characters linked?
  • "Quahog" Link?
  • "His dog Brian" I don't think describing Brian as Stewie's dog is that accurate
  • "but rather gets stuck on a plane" I actually saw this episode the other day- that's not really an accurate description of what happened.
  • "Brian needs a way to get back to the U.S. but Stewie refuses to go back and insists they go to Jolly Farm so to get transport they perform a musical number as a diversion in order to steal a camel, which dies from exhaustion later that night in the middle of the desert Brian and Stewie are forced to sleep in the camel only to learn there is a nearby hotel." Very convoluted sentence...

More examples, not listing everything now-

Ok, I'm gonna give it another read through.

  • Is it called "Jolly Farm Revue" or "Jolly Farm Review"?
    Saw the episode and it was spelled Revue.
  • The hotel is a Holiday Inn or something wasn't? I seem to remember a joke about that.
    Comfort Inn to be exact.
  • "They inadvertently travel to Amsterdam." Was it really inadvertent?
    Done
  • "first Road to episode" Which was that?
    Done
  • Inconsistency with how you refer to the Road to episodes throughout the article- quote marks or not?
  • "he left the show to create his own series, entitled Phineas and Ferb, a series which has since been nominated for three Emmy Awards" Getting off-topic. "he left the show to create his own series, Phineas and Ferb" would be enough.
    Done.
  • "It was believed" By whom?
    I am sorry but can you specify where this is
    Production. ctrl+f will let you search the page on most browsers. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --Pedro J. the rookie 13:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent dating styles in the references.
    Done. --Pedro J. the rookie 12:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's simply not enough about the reception. I'm not happy with the only reception being that one mention in the list.
    I would love to get more reception but there is no more i contacted a critic but said that it would take him two years and there are just no reliable reviews. --Pedro J. the rookie 12:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think I'm happy with promoting this with such little coverage of the reception. Did people involved say what they thought on blogs? Any mention of fan response on DVD commentaries? Dug up some TV Times type magazines from the time? There MUST be more. J Milburn (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright put a quote and a comment. --Pedro J. the rookie 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not bad, that's certainly helped. I'd personally still like to see more- we do have two opinions, but they're both from IGN. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah i am trying to look but keep in mind that family guy's early seasons are note that recognized in reviews, but i will keep looking. --Pedro J. the rookie 15:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I could not find anything on the episode only i just found reviews on seasons and the road to series, remember what i said it is hard to find reviews for theses its actually incredibly i was able to find the second reviewer's comment. --Pedro J. the rookie 16:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept it may not be the easiest thing to find, but I strongly suspect that there is more out there. The article has improved, a lot, but it's right on the cusp now. I am going to seek a second opinion. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also note I made edits to the lead image's page and uploaded a smaller version, and did some moderately heavy copyediting. This still isn't quite there. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd review:
  • Assuming that changes in the main text do not cause changes in the lead, the lead needs to explain the main characters, e.g.:
  • The plot summary confuses me. Stewie "sneaks aboard a transatlantic flight, intending to travel to London ..." "The Griffin's dog Brian tries to stop Stewie from leaving Rhode Island and follows him into a plane" suggests a different plane, but "The plane takes off, and they land in the Middle East" implies that they board the plane. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "Production" is poorly written, especially:
    • "While series creators Seth MacFarlane and episode writer Palladino worked as executive producers". --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Povenmire directed "Road to Europe" and two other "Road to" episodes before he left the show to create his own series, entitled Phineas and Ferb" is about Povenmire and Phineas and Ferb, and should be removed as it not about "Road to Europe" and makes it appear that "The episodes are a parody of the seven Road to comedy films ..." is about Phineas and Ferb rather than about Road to Europe. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In section "Cultural references":
  • After so many examples of poor writing in 2 sections, I'd put the review on hold for a week and tell the nominator to check all the writing in the article - an article should be as good as it can be before the start of review. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I need to deal with some RL, but will be back into about an hour to look at other aspects of the article. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved the Production section. --Pedro J. the rookie 23:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A third look

[edit]

Prose is very poor in sections, e.g. This is the seconded episode of the "Road to" episodes...; The episode's plot, behind the scenes and other information was released; Cultural refrences section needs deleting, this is inconseqential trivia. A very thin set of references indicative of the fact that single episodes of cartoon programmes are not notable at all, howver much fans like them. Probably should be deleted under WP:EPISODE. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but I think there's to need to do it quickly. I'd look at the reviews, which are a very mixed set. --Philcha (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CR should not for the reason that the refrences are one of Family Guy's biggest hallmarks every episode has refrences, i have fixed most of the seconded review probleams and will continue to fix them. --Pedro J. the rookie 17:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion- failed

[edit]

As per this request, I'm gonna make my decision. I am failing the article; looking through now, I can still see issues. Firstly, the review issue has not been remidied- I'd want to see more. Secondly, the prose is still very choppy in places- for instance "Recognizing an old classmate, Peter is shocked to discover it is actually Gene Simmons, without his makeup." It wasn't Peter, it was Lois, and the way you refer to the Road to episodes is still completely inconsistent. This is not ready for GA status, and it has been on hold for long enough. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Road to Europe/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 23:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Very few niggles here.
    "...mere jaded actors" -> "merely"
    Chattanooga Choo Choo should be in quotation marks as it's a song title, as "Chattanooga Choo Choo".
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    MOS is fine.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    References are mostly fine. I'd like to see the date of writing/publication for the websites cited, though, but that's about it.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Scope here is fine, no problems with it.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutral
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Stable
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Images are fine. Two commons, so no worries with those, and the FUR for the screenshot seems solid.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Changes are slight, so I'm going to do them myself and put this through as a pass when I'm done. Well done!

European Road Show or Road to Europe?

[edit]

I haven't seen any consensus among critics, or otherwise to suggest the title is the former and not the latter. Would there be any objetions if I were to be so bold as to move the content under an article with the title "Road the Europe"? BlueNoise (Désorienté? It's just purple) 21:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question. The article is already named Road to Europe with European Road Show as a redirect. DonIago (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Road_to_Europe&oldid=1207951069"