Talk:Airport '07

Commentary stuff

• The episode was originally meant to be title "Keep on Truckin'" (MacFarlane)
• The Michael Richards gag was added in later. (Goodman)
• Stewie remembering how Brian beat him up is a reference to Patriot Games. (Goodman)
• Goodman comments in the DVD commentary that "[the show] are not showing a lot of respect for rednecks." (Goodman)
• The voice of the Thai women in Quagmire's boot were all voiced by Cherry Chevapropadumrong, a member of Family Guy staff. (MacFarlane)
• Peter flying in the car is a reference to Top Gun, as is the music. (MacFarlane)
• Quagmire's co-pilot is a reference to 'Return of the Jedi (MacFarlane)
• Mayor West being told about the plane crash is a reference to George Bush's reaction after being told about the 9/11 attacks, as MacFarlane comments, "he didn't act so quick." (MacFarlane)
• The gag of Tom Tucker showing clips of the how the crash could of been is a reference to local news and how, in MacFarlane's words, "how irresponsible it is." (MacFarlane)
• Several of the slaps given to the woman by the man were cut out. (Goodman) (MacFarlane)
• The scene of Peter's penis was censored on Fox. It is because of a famous crotch shot of Britney Spears getting out of the car. (Goodman)
• The "three weeks later" rabbit pictures is a reference to the movie Babe. (MacFarlane)
• The name of the person ringing the Griffins when it is for Quagmire was changed, as broadcasting standards objected to the original one. (MacFarlane)(Goodman)
• The prom night dumbster baby was pitched by Danny Smith. Walter Murphy then arranged a 40-piece orchestra to perform, and some of the vocals used throughout the song belong to FG's engineer Patrick Clark. (MacFarlane) (Smith)
• The sketch showing a faux beginning to family guy as a comedy show is a reference to Will and Grace. (MacFarlane)
• The joke about Quagmire becoming Joe's "nappy changer" was cut from television airing, as they weren't allowed to make a "poop joke". (MacFarlane)
• Walter Murphy used a lot of music from the movie Airplane! and arranged it appropriately for the episode. (MacFarlane)
• The sketch of the plane taking off on the runway uses direct music and an identical animation to the scene and music from Airplane! (MacFarlane)
• Alex Borstein provided the voice of the woman with the bad laugh. (Goodman) (MacFarlane)
• The gag of Quagmire jumping out, half naked, out of a deceased girls coffin was cut from TV because broadcasting standards objected. (MacFarlane)
• Quagmire saying "the contents of your vagina may have shifted during intercourse" was changed to "the contents of your panties may have shifted during intercouse." (Goodman) (MacFarlane)
• A reference to the Lawrence Welk show is made when Stewie learns that Peter is crashing a plane, and its only available on the DVD. (MacFarlane)
• Hugh Heffner provided his own voice for the episode. (MacFarlane)
• The scene of Heffner and Quagmire talking has a slight echo, as noted by MacFarlane, as it was recorded in Heffner's Den, so Patrick Clark matched the echo sound from Heffner's voice so it would show when Quagmire was talking. (MacFarlane)
• Music from Airplane! is again featured when Quagmire is guiding the plane down. (MacFarlane)
• The ending of the episode is a reference to the credits from the end of Little House on the Prairie (MacFarlane)

Qst (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of censorship details

Does it REALLY have to be mentioned that FOX censored the penis? All television shows (except for pornographic channels maybe) do that, penises, tits and vaginas are blurred on television all the time. I personally think it's too obvious to mention. It's as obvious as mentioning if the word fuck is bleeped out on television. Though it might be worth mentioning that the penis is shown on the DVD, but having the statement that FOX blurred the penis alone is in my opinion just stating the obvious. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You do have a point, but some people might not be aware such things are not broadcast on television. I'm open to disussion on this. Qst (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't include everything that "some people" are unaware of. If you won't object I will remove this fact later today, since I still find it too obvious. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I do object. However obvious it may be to you and I, not everyone is aware of these things, and it essentially removing valuable info. Qst (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You might have a point, but still we don't include everything that some people might be unaware of, if we did big articles like this would be crowded with everything people are unaware of. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we wait for a third opinion on this matter, as we can't seem to agree. Once I've done a little more work to the article and this is resolved, and send it off to GAC. — Qst (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is now ready to be sent to GAC, but I will not nominate it until this is sorted out. I'll try to seek a third opinion on this via IRC. Qst (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a third opinion is needed. We simply don't seem to agree on this. I disagree with you and you disagree with me, we need someone else to join this discussion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I asked edgarde to join the discussion, now we have to wait and see. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Let me first declare my prejudice: I am avoiding episode articles these days because almost all have notability issues.

I mostly agree with TheBlazikenMaster that the differences between different broadcasts and media releases resemble the sort of trivia that is better suited to TV.com and Family Guy Wiki. However, the article Criticism of Family Guy suggests to me that Family Guy often pushes the contemporary limits of what can be shown on TV, so issues of censorship may be more notable on FG than other shows. A bit of notice in secondary sources (beyond TV show review sources) would establish notability. Lacking that, information about the Producer's discussion with Standards & Practices over a particular scene would make these details acceptable to me. Lacking that, I'm ambivalent.

Sorry not to give a more decisive answer. The "disturbing elements" review is a start on establishing notability on censorship issues from secondary sources, but I would strongly recommend including more if any can be found. That said, information verified by a primary source (such as a DVD commentary) does not need to be removed immediately. As long as Qst (whose style I don't wish to cramp since a talent for pushing episode articles to GA status is well-demonstrated) is improving the article I would choose to err on the side of inclusion for the time being. That is my suggestion. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Is everyone okay if I nominate this at GAC now? Qst (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but whether or not the fact about blurred penis should be there is still under discussion. But that's just a small issue, that shouldn't stop the article from being good. I believe a lot of articles get featured while there are unsolved discussions on the talk page. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Airport '07/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. 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:

   Question: Does Peter reverse his car onto Quagmire's car? Same section, this sentence ---> "When they are in the air, Peter will drug the pilots", is the plan for Peter to drug the pilots? In the Production section, "organise" [That problem has been delth with. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)] is spelled wrong. Same section, this sentence ---> "The sketch showing Quagmire becoming Joe's careworked", is it trying to say that Quagmire became Joe's careworker?

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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:

   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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the plan was for Peter to drug the pilots. All the other problems have been fixed by TheBlazikenMaster and I. Qst (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to TheBlazikenMaster and Qst who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Qst deserves most of the credits, all I did was fixing the word organize into American English. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that given all the times you've removed trivia from this article, and all the times you will in the future, I'd say you've done more than enough. :) Qst (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Quagmire Speaking Thai

When Quagmire yells something in Thai to the escaping women, is that real or just gibberish? If it's real, what is he saying? JDS2005 (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

“Hey, where are you going? Come back here, you bitches! I already paid for you! Cheaters! I made a deal with your parents, why do you disobey me?” Wikifried (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Stewie giving oral sex to Brian?

- During the "Will & Grace"-style bumper, it appears that Stewie is performing fellatio on Brian; can anyone confirm this? If this is the case, should it be mentioned in the Notes section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.123.186 (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Delisted Good Article status

Removed {{Good article}}. The article does not meet criterion for Good article status:

• The plot section has no references. Per good article criterion, good articles need to be "Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• The plot section goes into unnecessary detail, rather than providing a summary. Per good article criterion, good articles need to “stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.”

The article fails Good article criterion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Airport '07/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

There are many factors which are causing me to second this to whether this should be a GA, there is unsourced quotes,

Lead

Some of the lead is referenced, but some is not, explanation for this?

Original

Airport '07" is the twelfth episode of season five of Family Guy. The episode originally broadcast on March 4, 2007.[1] The plot follows Quagmire being dismissed from his job as a pilot after Peter decided to remove the airplane fueling hose prematurely. Peter, Joe and Cleveland make a plan to get Quagmire his job back and, although the plan itself fails, Quagmire is re-hired.[2]

The episode was written by Tom Devanney and directed by John Holmquist. It received mostly positive reviews from critics for its storyline and many cultural references. According to Nielsen ratings, it was viewed in 8.59 million homes in its original airing. The episode featured guest performances by Barclay DeVeau, Hugh Hefner, Phil LaMarr, Rachael MacFarlane and Fred Tatasciore, along with several recurring guest voice actors for the series.

Proposed

Airport '07" is the twelfth episode of season five of Family Guy. The episode originally broadcast on 4 March 2007.[1] The plot follows Quagmire being dismissed from his job as a pilot after Peter sabotages Quagmire's airplane by emptying the fuel out of the plane, causing it to crash. Peter, Joe and Cleveland make a plan to get Quagmire his job back and, although the plan itself fails, Quagmire is re-hired.[2]

Written by Tom Devanney and directed by John Holmquist, the episode received mostly positive reviews from critics. According to Nielsen ratings, it was watched by 8.59 million households in its original airing. The episode featured guest performances by Barclay DeVeau, Hugh Hefner, Phil LaMarr, Rachael MacFarlane and Fred Tatasciore, along with several recurring guest voice actors from the series.

Plot

Per GA standards, the plot should be referenced.

Also, the plot has a lot of (bracketed) things, which are not advised, its rather messy the plot and has long winded and unneccesary information. MayhemMario 20:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Delisted, note I did not do a full thorough review, as no editor commented on this. MayhemMario 17:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

AGREEING TO DELIST

Hey guys I am thinking that the page is a delist.

There is some Citations that need to be added

Deunick (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted scene?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXj89ErWK_0&feature=related Why wasn't this mentioned in the article? --RThompson82 (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)