Talk:Road to Rupert

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 16, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Some minor grammatical errors, but I sorted them out.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Appears to be factually accurate.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Seems to cover all aspects.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: No sign of bias.
 * 5. Article stability? No sign of edit wars.
 * 6. Images?: Images given fair use rationale.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — ISD (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How is the photo of Seth's face relevant to the episode?
This can be in any article that has an Audio Commentary, so how is it relevant? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm trying to bring this article to featured article status, and most episode articles which are FAs have freely-licensed images of producers/directors, with a relevant caption accompanying them. Qst (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But why I photo? I mean this is an episode from an animated show. Wait, no you're right there is a photo on Homer's Enemy and that's also an episode of an animated show. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was bold and removed it. QST, I understand that you are trying to get this article to FA (doing a great job too), but this pic makes very little sense in the article. It's rationale for inclusion that it's needed for FA status really isn't good enough. Outside of that rationale it doesn't seem needed. There is no other episode related pic we can use? A pic of the dance number would seem relevant Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

QST, I see you reverted me, again using the same reason for inclusion. I won't revert you, but please watch out for ownership issues. The photo is not a good inclusion, I've personally checked most of the Simpsons FA's and it appears all the photos are more relevant. I see one with a questionable Hank Azaria pic, but most of the others have pics of the guest voice for that episode or something of the like. Both I and Blaziken master saw this page and immediately questioned why such a pic would be in here. A pic should not be included just to get the article to FA, especially when it doesn't actually add anything to the article... especially when it makes readers question it's inclusion. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 12:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but you have to understand that the inclusion of production staff images is used to keep the article balance between fair use images, and free images. I don't think I own the article by any means (well, I know I don't,) but I apologise if this little dispute got the better of any us. :) Qst (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not getting the better of either of us. I have total respect for your work on these articles. I think I'm asking you to take a step back and look at your reasoning. Outside of wiki beauracracy and red tape, the Seth photo is a confusing addition to the article. It's out-of-place. The episode wasn't especially acclaimed or popular in the FG universe, and the inclusion of the show creator doesn't seem warranted. I mean... the quote included is barely encyclopedic itself. My point is, the photo doesn't improve the article, you already have two editors posting on the talk page that it doesn't... so take a step back from the FA red tape and think about what is best for the article, not what will give the article a best chance for FA (which I doubt it would because I don't think it compares favorably to similar Simpsons use). Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 12:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're both right. Equally. So until we get a better free use photo this one will stay. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I (may) have solved the issue. I inserted a free use photo of Rob Lowe. Rob Lowe guest starred in the episode and I see Simpson's FAs doing the same thing for some of their free use photos (pic of the guest star). What do you guys think?Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's great, it would help if you'd include WHO he is in this episode. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, in the caption. I stated his character's name in the episode. Should the name be italicized?Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. :) Qst (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait... is he Sanford or Stanford. It's printed both ways prior in the article. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn, how come there are almost always obvious things I don't notice? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A few extra things
"...I don't think we did a good job, and, you know [...] the other problem with it is that they don't even open the box to see if Rupert is inside" Qst (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Stewie's idea of Rupert's funeral is a reference to Pale Rider and Amazing Grace.
 * A parody of Cheers is made when Peter is watching it. (Goodman)
 * The 1980s style comedy sequence is from Family Ties. (MacFarlane)
 * The concept behind the episode of Brian and Stewie tracking down the man just as he is leaving took a lot of work to figure it out
 * David Goodman quote
 * The music when Peter is bonding with Meg is Something Good. (MacFarlane)

Potential sources for Reception

 * Will list more here if I find any. Cirt (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * T'was all I could find as far as Reception sources that aren't already in this article. Cirt (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After having run through a Google translator I got this:
 * While Griffin made a vacuum-Grenier, Brian accidentally sells teddy bear of Stewie, Rupert. Stewie, very angry, asked Brian to help him find it. Meanwhile, Peter makes a cascade drive for the less dangerous and loses his driving licence: Meg becomes its own chaufeur.
 * That doesn't look much different from what we already have in the article, it would be nice if you could explain what part of the page could come in handy. That was the biggest text I could find on the place, and I just can't see how it can help the article, now I'm not saying that it's unreliable or anything. I just want some explaining. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't look much different from what we already have in the article, it would be nice if you could explain what part of the page could come in handy. That was the biggest text I could find on the place, and I just can't see how it can help the article, now I'm not saying that it's unreliable or anything. I just want some explaining. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Road to Rupert
The bit saying the Spongebob music wouldn't be included in syndication may be in the commentary, but it is inaccurate as I am watching a TBS version I recorded yesterday and the actual Spongebob music is still in. Propose that we edit it to say that, while the commentary asserts that the music would not be used in syndication, it has appeared in some syndicated versions of the show (as it may not be in other airings, such as on Adult Swim). 75.82.200.238 (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

GA concerns
After reviewing this article, I am concerned that it does not meet the GA criteria anymore. My concerns are listed below: Is anyone interested in fixing up the article? Z1720 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Production" section has many uncited sections,
 * The "Cultural references" section looks like a list of trivia about the references. Some information (like the rights to the Spongebob song) should probably be in "Production" but other things need to be removed.
 * Are there any additional sources that can be used in the article? A Google search produces a lot of list-articles, but perhaps there is something that can be used to expand the "Production" or "Reception" sections.