Talk:The Break-Up (30 Rock)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 16:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am reviewing the article and will add my comments below. I did some minor copy editing of the article that I hope meets with your approval. Feel free to change and mistakes I made. Xtzou (Talk) 16:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I have gone over the prose and changed a few things, hopefully ok.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR:

   There are two references to another wikipedia article, refs 11 and 12. That is a no-no. Wikipedia doesn't reference itself.

   Ref 23 (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-157033125/nielsen-primetime-ratings-report.html) doesn't seem to referenced the show.

   Um, it's not so supposed to be Wikipedia itself, it's a {{cite episode}} ref that is being used. The accesslibrary one, you have to have a log in for this one. If you do have one, then see where NBC is and check on Thursday and you'll find The Office, Scrubs, 30 Rock, and ER, and next to it are the ratings/share. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   In the Production section there is an over focus on other episodes that various actors played in. This is a diversion that might go in a article on the actor perhaps, but it is not relevant to this episode, I don't think.

   Removed them from Dratch's bit. Seems pretty notable to have it for Winters. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Stable

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass

• I have put the review on hold for seven days.

Xtzou (Talk) 16:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So there is no link to ref 11? Xtzou (Talk) 00:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You gotta understand that there wasn't much info. available during the show's first season. But, replaced. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Very good. Thanks! Xtzou (Talk) 14:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Xtzou (Talk) 23:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Final GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance: }

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused: }

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations. Xtzou (Talk) 14:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)