Talk:Fireworks (30 Rock)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Looking good. Some suggestions to nudge the article along to a GA:
- Unbold quotes around episode title.
- Per WP:MOSTV, the plot should only be 200–500 words (this one's about 525). There should be roughly ten words per minute, around 400, and I'm assuming the 40 minute length includes commercials anyway.
- Don't need the semicolon in the first plot sentence - just use a comma.
- McBrayer "memorably" made guest appearances - who is this quoting?
- a waiter at the Bluth families country club - "family's"
- 9:00 pm which was the series usual timeslot - "series'" (series')
- during a dream Tracy has, Jack, in the form of Thomas Jefferson, holds his hand up to Tracy and says - this needs some serious rewording. I had to read it three times before I realised Tracy didn't "have Jack".
- citing thats "the writers - come again? "thats"?
- Matt Webb Mitovich gets "shrewdly cast" and "good, good stuff" but then Robert Canning's review is summarised in its whole own paragraph?! Seriously undue weight there. Canning only needs two or three comments.
I'll place the article on hold for a week. Good luck with the changes. —97198 (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. McBrayer "memorably" made guest appearances, this was a quote from the ref, Yahoo. And about the reception section, Matt W.M.'s reviews are always very short; "shrewdly cast" and "good, good stuff" is practically all he said. Canning, however, has longer, more thorough reviews. Is what he has now fine? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry it took a few days to get back to you - I finally gave in and bought Twilight to see what all the fuss was about and, well, I'm regretting it. :P The only real issue remaining is the reception thing. The issue wasn't really that MWM wasn't given enough comments, but rather that Canning simply had too many, which I think he still does. Maybe take a squiz at WP:MOSTV#Reception, which talks about undue weight towards particular reviewers and says that each reviewer shouldn't exceed two or three comments. —97198 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I still think he's got a little too many comments - try and cut it down to three, the rating inclusive. I also spotted the un-American spelling of "honour" in the lead which should be changed as it's a U.S. show. —97198 (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, that's good. I'll promote it to a GA. —97198 (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I still think he's got a little too many comments - try and cut it down to three, the rating inclusive. I also spotted the un-American spelling of "honour" in the lead which should be changed as it's a U.S. show. —97198 (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry it took a few days to get back to you - I finally gave in and bought Twilight to see what all the fuss was about and, well, I'm regretting it. :P The only real issue remaining is the reception thing. The issue wasn't really that MWM wasn't given enough comments, but rather that Canning simply had too many, which I think he still does. Maybe take a squiz at WP:MOSTV#Reception, which talks about undue weight towards particular reviewers and says that each reviewer shouldn't exceed two or three comments. —97198 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)