Talk:30 Rock season 3/GA1: Difference between revisions

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

Nominator: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 22:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Olliefant (talk · contribs) 08:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll take this as I’m partially responsible for it getting delisted from FLC. Olliefant (she/her) 08:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Synopsis

• Unsourced
• “Cooter” is missing quotes
• ” Kenneth Parcell’s (Jack McBrayer) age is also revealed to be questionable. It is also revealed, in the penultimate episode of season 7, that Jack and Jenna were romantically involved throughout season 3.” are both throwaway gags that don’t need to mentioned

Crew

• Should be a subsection of “Production” a section that does not exist in this page

Cast

• Should be a subsection of “Production” a section that does not exist in this page
• The bullet point casts need to be sourced
• Salma Hayek is a weird choice for a picture, wouldn’t Fey or Baldwin would be better picks?
• Should have more information on the celeb cameos

  I disagree, the cameos were fairly extensive in the season and I would consider them significant enough to warrent some prose Olliefant (she/her) 18:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No mention of Jon Hamm’s role despite him being mentioned in the synopsis

Episodes

• The airdates are unsourced

  They aren’t sourced to themselves. Episode’s cover plot and credits. They don’t typically list airdates within the credits. They haven’t usually been sourced, but I feel if it isnt sourced it does not meet critria 2 of the GA criteria Olliefant (she/her) 18:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The production codes are unsourced
• Plot summaries need to be expanded,

  I disagree, MOS:TVPLOT gives a 200 word limit for episode tables, a good amount of these don’t even crack 100 words. Not enough to sufficently cover the topic Olliefant (she/her) 18:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Episode 22 has big WP:SOB problems
  • No, that’s not what sea of blue is about: a sea of blue occurs when it’s not clear whether adjacent links will be one link or multiple. It’s quite obvious that this is a list of distinct names. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

• The reviews section needs to be expanded

  I disagree, it’s too reliant on quotes and favors to premier and finale. Coverage of those two is about half of the total reception, very little on the season itself Olliefant (she/her) 18:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The “ratings” and “awards and nominations” section could use tables

  I disagree, currently the awards section is messy to read and not super clear. I’d be better to see as an overview. Ratings tables are fairly standerd across Tv season articles, I would agrue they are needed for GA Olliefant (she/her) 18:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution

Misc

@LEvalyn: I’m going to be blunt. I am heavily leaning to quickfailing this page. Unless you have a good reason not too, I do not think this page could be made GA quality in a reasonable time frame. I strongly believe that if I were to dig further I would find more issues with prose and sourcing on top of everything already listed here. (for example, paragraph 2 of synopsis should list Fey, Carlock, Burditt, and Riggi by last names only and not full names as they are named in the previous paragraph). Olliefant (she/her) 08:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these thorough comments, but I disagree that most of them are necessary at the GA level. I’d like at least a few days to take a closer look at similar TV GAs and address some concerns before the review is failed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a closer look now that I’m on my computer, this looks very addressable to me. I’ve replied above to the points I’ve either addressed or disagreed with; I’ll continue working through those points as I go. I think my biggest point of pushback is the GA criterion for breadth, which is quite a lot lower than the FA criterion for comprehensiveness. Having looked at some comparison articles, it does look like a production section is needed as a “main aspect” of the topic so I’ll pull one together. I’ll also address the unsourced material. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]