Talk:Episode 210

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Could the lead be expanded?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There are some slight POV issues. If you could go through and neutralize it a bit, it would be much better

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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/Fail:

For the most part, the article is good. However, the writing needs a little work in some areas, and there are slight POV issues as well. Until these isses are adderessed, I've put the article On-hold. Thank you for your work in improving this article thus far, and good luck in improving it to GA status. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 19:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, During the flashback sequences featuring Jack and C.C. trying to arrange meetings while C.C. is at work, it appears the characters are appearing on a fictional television channel named G-Span, an obvious reference to C-Span. is not neutral. "An obvious reference to..." is a POV. Also, the first sentence is awkward. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 01:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's starting to look better, and it's almost there. I think a final copyedit would do it. Julian^{(Leap Day 2008)} 22:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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/Fail:

It has been improved since I first reviwed it, and it now passes GA.

Ratings section

The ratings section states that it was up against many television serial's repeats or second-halfs. I feel that its not valid to compare a half hour episode to second half of an one-hour episode....so i deleted the sentence and moved the ratings sentence to previous section. Gprince007 (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Page name

This page needs to be moved: Episode 210 is not a good title for the tenth episode of the second season of 30 Rock. Can someone suggest a more descriptive title? Geometry guy 19:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait till the DVD comes out and see what they list it as. If it's "Untitled", maybe go with Untitled (30 Rock)? Not sure till then. —97198 talk 05:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to be upfront about it with a title like "Episode 10 (30 Rock, season 2)" or even "30 Rock, season 2, episode 10". Geometry guy 14:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Episode 210. 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/20080418063200/http://www.wga.org:80/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=2775 to http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=2775

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) 09:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Episode 210. 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/20080718145548/http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/2008pte/60thpte_noms.php to http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/2008pte/60thpte_noms.php

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) 21:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)