Talk:The Funcooker/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Just some small things.
 * TGS needs to be spelled out once before the abbreviation is used.
 * Done. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the lead I don't think you need the bolded bit of "who plays Tracy Jordan on 30 Rock."
 * Well, since he's not mention in the lead, it helps to write that out, not for me, but for a reader who is not familiar with the show.
 * It's a small thing, I won't hold this up, but we are at an article about 30 Rock, it's rather clear IMO.
 * The plot prose needs some work in places to read more encyclopedically. "and cannot get out of it even with her Princess Leia act," for example. Maybe something like "cannot avoid it despite claiming to be Princess Leia"?
 * Done.
 * Ditto for "movie of "not-a-Janis-Joplin-biopic" at night". Perhaps "worn out from working on TGS during the day and on her unlicensed Janis Joplin biopic at night." Make sure you link Joplin).
 * Done.
 * "Back at the 30 Rock studios" to "Back at the studios" to clear up any meta-confusion with the studios for the show (30 Rock) within a show called 30 Rock.
 * Done.
 * Link batting average under Production? That's an honest question, not sure if it would create more confusion than it solves.
 * Done.
 * The last paragraph of Reception doesn't make sense to me. It leads off saying not all reviews were positive, but the first bit quoted is quite positive, saying this episode shows why 30 Rock is better than other shows (not just a collection of funny stuff, but builds to a conclusion). This also makes the "nonetheless" in the next sentence confusing. "[Good stuff]. Nonetheless, he liked this part"
 * Oops, I don't know how I missed that one. I guess I read it wrong. Fixed.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Would it be worth including a fair-use screenshot like many of the articles do? I can grab one later today if you think it's worthwhile.
 * I did have in mind adding this image, but decided against it. I don't want to violate the non-free content criteria policy.
 * I meant an actual screenshot, like I took for Do-Over or The Natural Order.
 * Yeah, I know what you meant. Like I said, I did want to upload that image, but I wasn't sure if it would help the article, also because I didn't want to violate the non-free guideline. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be worth including a fair-use screenshot like many of the articles do? I can grab one later today if you think it's worthwhile.
 * I did have in mind adding this image, but decided against it. I don't want to violate the non-free content criteria policy.
 * I meant an actual screenshot, like I took for Do-Over or The Natural Order.
 * Yeah, I know what you meant. Like I said, I did want to upload that image, but I wasn't sure if it would help the article, also because I didn't want to violate the non-free guideline. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Some work, but a very solid starting point. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)