Talk:Baby Not on Board

Baby Not on Board 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
August 12, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
August 19, 2010	Good article reassessment	Delisted
June 3, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 12, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

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: 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 Family Guy work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled

Just FYI, after the original airing of "Road to Germany," a commercial was shown for the next episode ("Stewie is left home alone") and the promise of all new episodes in November. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missed reference

Wasn't Peter's speech at the train station a direct copy of the speech from Uncle Buck? TMC1221 (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Wildonrio (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to know where that reference was from! Youtube link anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.190.90 (talk • contribs)

I too would like to know, right after the speech Chris says "Haha movie reference", but which movie was it? --TheTruthiness (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was bugging me too, so I put the whole quote in Google. It's from Planes, Trains and Automobiles. TMC1221 got the actor right, but not the movie. Here's the link to the Wikiquote page for it : http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Planes,_Trains_and_Automobiles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.194.163 (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

Baby Not On Board → Baby Not on Board — The word "on" should be lowercase as it is a preposition. — –Dream out loud (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is "On" capitalized in Baby On Board? 199.125.109.126 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It shouldn't be capitalized there either, as per WP:CAPS. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

title of the episode

stolen, oh sorry, plagiated from the simpsons baby on board, song from homers barbershop quartet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.229.241 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baby Not on Board/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 17:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could use a little more expansion on either "reception" ~~or "production"~~.
It has a neutral point of view.
There is no edit wars.
appropiate use of images
It is factually accurate

I'm putting it on hold for some needed expansion. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 17:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a more detailed analysis. Thanks. Gage (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please speciyfy what do you wish to be done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 08:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the recepetion section mainly focuses on the negative comments made on the episode, and could use a little more reviews on it(and I changed my mind about the "production" section;that one is just fine.) Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what i can expaned for the reception on positive grounds. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I give the article a Pass then. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 23:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, really? Did you read the article? Did you happen to notice any sentences ending in commas? Links to disambiguation pages? Did you happen to notice the following sentence: Commented negatively on the Back to the Future references and the very similar Home Alone plotline and"? Or this one: But he did comment positively to some jokes such as the fight between Peter and Quagmire, Stewie capturing Quagmire and Cleveland and Stewie´s reaction to the magazine under Chris bed.? --Beloved Freak 23:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why I was reluctant to have this person review the article. Gage (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I myself as the nominator must say that the review felt a bit flat. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article for GAN, but it's gonna be hard now, since the Production section needs to be expanded now! Railer-man (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New GA nom

The notice is above. Please review, then leave a message on my talk page. Thanks!! Railer-man (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baby Not on Board/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see this one has already been reviewed a few times, but I worry that's it's still not at GA level.

"The episode features baby Stewie, after he is accidentally left home alone, while the rest of his family intend on visiting the Grand Canyon." Odd phrase
"The Griffin family soon" The rest of the family
"While they rush home, Peter continually bungles their attempt," Again, odd phrasing
"wastes all of his diapers" "Wastes" is not the best word; I don't think it can be used in the way you think it can
File:FGBabyNotOnBoard.png is a generic shot of Stewie looking shocked. I really don't get what it's adding.
"The episode received mixed reviews from critics for its storyline, and many cultural references." The episode received many cultural references?
"reveals to his father about" Rephrase?
"to their basement wall" Whose basement wall?
"McBurgertown" The link here is a little odd...
The plot section is a tiny bit long. Perhaps some unwarranted details could be cut?
There is a lot more to be said concerning the production. Who wrote the episode? When? How long did it take? What was their inspiration? Who guest-starred? What you've included in the section are "extras", apparently at the expense of the standard stuff.
The cultural references section seems somewhat out of place; my reaction, in many ways, is "so what?" It's just a list of some of the jokes in the episode... It gets particularly listy towards the end, and it's no longer referenced.
- "At the spa," What spa?
- "The scene in which Joe is cleaning his wheelchair" Implies we should know of that scene
"One of his other criticisms of the episode were the Back to the Future references and the plot line of the episode." Rephrase/restructure?
"the musical number" Yet to be mentioned
"the Aquaman rape gag and the Ground Zero joke" Again, these are referred to as if we know what they are
"but he did comment positively to some jokes" Doesn't make sense
"as the fight between Peter and Quagmire, ... Stewie's reaction to the magazine under Chris' bed" Again
"the Lord of the Rings gag."
The references could do with some links and formatting fixes. For example, why is the phrase "DVD commentary for the episode "Baby Not on Board"" in italics? Why no link to IGN? Is Channel Guide Magazine literally a magazine? (If so, italicise). Ref 5 lacks a publisher. Etc.
The navbox thing at the bottom showing episode chronology needs speech marks

This article is somewhat lacking. It's not the worst GAC I've ever reviewed, but it's a long way from ready. Are there really no other decent sources out there? J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved on most of the sections, but I'm gonna need some additional help finding sources. Transcripts are a good idea for sourcing; it helped me with "420 (Family Guy)". Queenieacoustic is able to help with the transcripts, so I'll ask him for it. Yahoo! TV also has production info.

BTW, there is an IGN link, and "DVD commentary for the episode "Baby Not on Board"" is supposed to be in italics. Railer-man (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was meaning a wikilink. And why should it be in italics? See the guideline. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baby Not on Board/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 05:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Again, it doesn't really add, critically, to the article, so I'd remove it
Infobox: Any cite for the production number?
Lede: Fox -> "Fox network", but just link "Fox"
Lede: add who plays who in parenthesis after the characters in the intro, also, link characters, like Peter
Lede: This section uses the word 'episode' quite a bit. Maybe cut that down and mix it up, using 'entry', 'installment', etc
Production: add what season "420" was in
Production: "…that celebrities do not spawn wide…" I'm not sure this makes much sense. Trying "that celebrities do not feature wide"
Production: comma needed after "episodes of the seventh season"
Production: The entire third paragraph of this section is completely unsourced. Let's get some sources up in here
Cultural references: Make sure you explain what each reference is (book, film, etc?) Some readers might not know what Back to the Future or Ghost is
Cultural references: Period need after Back to the Future
Cultural references: "Another scene in the spa shows a reference to Ghost with representations of Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore as their characters from the film on top of Peter's back giving him a massage." -> "Another scene in the spa reference the Ghost; representations of the film's stars, Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore, are on top of Peter's back giving him a massage."
Cultural references: "filmd" -> "films"
Cultural references: "when Peter is reciting is "Power to Believe"" Reciting what? Also, does that song have a link/artist?
Cultural references: doesn't -> does not; watch contractions
Cultural references: Lost should be italicized
Reception: Add an explanation for what Nielsen ratings are
Reception: The lede says mixed ratings, but this part says mixed to negative. Make this consistent
Reception: Italicize The A.V. Club
Reception: Add a citation after every direct quote
References: Again, use consistent dating methods (either YYYY-MM-DD, or MM DD, YYYY)
References: Publisher on Ref. 1 should be Yahoo! TV
References: Remove 'Yahoo! TV' from the title of Ref. 1
References: Link AMC on Ref. 2
References: Link 20th Century Fox in Ref. 3
References: Link Amazon.com on Ref. 5
References: Link TV Guide and make it italicized on Ref. 8
References: On Ref. 10, the publisher should be Zap2it (linked), and the work should be TV by the Numbers (also linked)
References: Italicize The A.V. Club on Ref. 11
References: Fix dash issues on Ref 1 (make a normal dash, i.e. -, into an en dash, like this –)
References: There's some issues with double quotation marks on Refs. 7, 8, and 9. Quotes inside of quotes should use single quotation marks (i.e. "'Harry Potter' Is a Best-Seller")

OK, that's all I got. On hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all issues except for the "Fox --> Fox Network" which I didn't understand. 181.208.45.25 (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. There's still some issues with dashes in the references, and some double quotes in the refs. Fix these, and I'll pass it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 04:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. I will pass.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe's speech is from Full Metal Jacket, not Jarhead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.64.225 (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baby Not on Board. 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/20110711021928/http://www.foxinflight.com/tv/15/ to http://www.foxinflight.com/tv/15/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baby Not on Board. 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/20100207152803/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/11/03/sunday-ratings-nfl-desperate-housewives-and-60-minutes-lead-night/7446 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/11/03/sunday-ratings-nfl-desperate-housewives-and-60-minutes-lead-night/7446

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]