Talk:Peter's Progress

Eminem's appearance

Eminem is NOT appearing in this episode. He is appearing in some commercial bumpers with Stewie outside of the episode. End of story. - Jasonbres (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Won't this episode air in a few minutes? This edit-war will be over after the plot summary can be completed. It may be worth ignoring the incorrect content for another hour or two, since you're clearly dealing with somebody irrational. Don't let the stress of repeated edit-reverting get to you. Nimur (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sweeney Todd reference

I don't think the exiling of peter is a sweeney todd reference, it's a plot device used in many other stories i've heard67.173.215.126 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and removed 78.151.147.84 (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

other references

two references that should be mention:

• the Fox network tv show bumps that appeared at that bottom of the screen and the characters break the 4th wall to address them
• the guy who greets King Stewie in the church, telling him he really appreciates his support; that i'm not sure the guy was or the joke

67.173.215.126 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well according to Wikipedia guidelines cultural references and the like are considered irrelevan, unencyclopaedic trivia and should not be included (despite many users insisting on doing it anyway). 78.151.147.84 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Stewie's homosexuality references

I believe they should be mentioned somewhere at least. Same goes for the tiny penis joke that Brian makes.68.172.111.108 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Neither is notable, and just a joke. Plus it isn't Stewie, they are using him to play another character. CTJF83Talk 03:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Alan Rickman's Answering Machine

Should be here. :) 131.96.47.8 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

what's the joke in this segment? 77.181.33.169 (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:41, 21 June 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.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Production or Cultural references section, whatever you want to pick, you might want to add that How I Met Your Mother is a television program that airs on CBS, I mean I know what it is, but how 'bout your reader? In the Cultural references section, "Griffin Peterson's act in the talent show is a reference to the act the Lambda Lambda Lambdas perform at the homecoming in Revenge of the Nerds" ---> "Griffin Peterson's act in the talent show is a reference to the act the Lambda Lambda Lambdas perform at the homecoming in Revenge of the Nerds (1984)", so that it can provide context for the reader.

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Plot, "Cleveland" is linked twice, and needs to be linked just once.

   Check.

2. 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:

   In Reference 2 "Paste Magazine" needs to be in the "work" format of the source, as it is a magazine. Same thing with "The New York Times" (newspaper) in Ref. 4.

   Check.

   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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. 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:FGPetersProgress.jpg needs a lower resolution.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. 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) 15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Gage (talk) 06:01, 22 June 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) 14:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Gage (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mixed reviews?

"It received mixed reviews from critics for its storyline and many cultural references." Can't the same be said of almost every Family Guy episode, ever? I'm not sure the page needs a statement like that. 60.240.223.68 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter's Progress. 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/20090521121505/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/18/sunday-ratings-abc-wins-desperate-housewives-still-down/18861 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/18/sunday-ratings-abc-wins-desperate-housewives-still-down/18861

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) 23:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)