Talk:Stone Mountain (30 Rock)

Stone Mountain (30 Rock) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Stone Mountain (30 Rock) is part of the 30 Rock (season 4) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 22, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
January 10, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stone Mountain (30 Rock)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, an outstanding article. Somehow I missed this episode (I thought I had seen all the fall eps--anyhoo). The grammar is strong, the images look good, the phrasing is neutral, it is very thorough. It was really a pleasure to read. Some issues:

Production

What is the purpose of the following sentences? There is no need to justify a guest star's appearance: "Television host Jimmy Fallon, who made a cameo, has appeared in the main cast of Saturday Night Live (SNL), a weekly sketch comedy series which airs on NBC in the United States.[9] Tina Fey, the series creator of 30 Rock, was the head writer on SNL from 1999 until 2006.[10]"
- Removed. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would consolidate two sentences into one: "Blaine Horton, who reprised his role as Sasha, a gay friend of Jenna Maroney's, first appeared as the character in the Season 2 episode "Secrets and Lies".[12]"
- Done.
Speaking of which, the correct format for listing episodes is Season 3 (NOT season three, or Season Three or Season III). Please change this throughout the article. See other episode articles and you'll notice that it wouldn't say "Season 3" but "season three".
- This isn't an episode list. "If the episode lists includes episodes from multiple seasons, give them appropriate section headers such as 'Season 1', 'Season 2', or 'Series 1', 'Series 2' if that is the identifier for the show." The episode "Lisa the Vegetarian", an FA, says "[David S. Cohen] most prominent work for the show to that point had been the 'Nightmare Cafeteria' segment in the season six episode 'Treehouse of Horror V'."
  - I recognize this is not an episode list, but I just picked that to show you what convention is becuase I didn't have time to find the actual MOS policy on capitalization. I'll try to dig it up.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I've racked my brain trying to find the policy (which I admittedly have not actualy seen in a couple years, and very well could have been officially neglected at this point, since the MOS has been overhauled many times) but I feel that this formatting (e.g. Season 1) is (1) a general convention at Wikipedia and (2) grammatically sound. Season should be capitalized in this case because it is a body of work, like the name of a compilation of poetry or an album of songs. Also, while numbers lower than 10 are usually spelled out, in cases where there is a series, all numbers are used numerically for the sake of consistency. It would be discongruous to have Season Three adjacent to Season 14. I do not feel like this is a big deal, but the occurence of "(lowercase) season (spelled-out) three" or what have you appears so much in this article, I'm hesitant to promote it and have it used as an example, when I feel this is not the standard. If you've found my arguments compelling, please notify me of the changes. If you strongly disagree, I open to bring in a second opinion on the matter. Either way, let me know.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Trust me, if the guideline was that we have to abide by "Season 3", I'd go by it, I wouldn't challenge it. Seeing other episode articles, I haven't come across season being capitalized. If I did, I would follow that example and roll with it, as I've done in the past with some episodes. It's like the example at the capitalization page, "They are a Psychedelic Rock band" (nope), "They are a psychedelic rock band" (correct). As we all know, over at FAC they take guidelines very serious. Like that article I brought up, if season was supposed to be capitalized I believe they would have mentioned it and had to be added to the article. I agree, this doesn't seem to be a big issue, but if you want to bring a second opinion, go ahead I got no problem with that. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, since I've talked with you, I have gone to several television FA articles (including the famous Simpsons article) and repeatedly found all three (Season 1, season one, Season One) in...you guessed it...the same article--more than once. Personally, this horrifies me, but I guess its an issue that has slipped through the cracks, though we did have a policy at one time. Of course I will not punish this article for that lack of policy, but it is something on my own time that I will look into further.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 04:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"writers were going to be seen more in this season" → "writers were going to be seen more in the upcoming season"
- Done.
"Carlock revealed that" → "Carlock said" because of the use "we" later, it has to be a quote.
- Done.
"the fourth season premiere episode" → "the fourth season's premiere episode"
- Done.

"This plot was first introduced in the fourth season premiere episode "Season 4", in which Jack explains that the show's staff have become too elitist and need to change to survive in tough economic times,[14] and informs Liz to begin searching for a new cast member to help lessen this elitist image." - runon sentence

- I think I got it.

Cultural references

While it breaks my heart to say this, this part

"Star Wars is frequently referenced in 30 Rock, beginning with the pilot episode in 2006 where Tracy is seen shouting that he is a Jedi.[21] Liz admits to being a huge fan of Star Wars, saying that she had watched it many times with Pete Hornberger (Scott Adsit),[22] and dressed up as the Star Wars character Princess Leia during four recent Halloweens,[23] and while trying to get out of jury duty in Chicago and New York.[24][25] Star Wars is also referenced when Tracy takes on the identity of the character Chewbacca.[26]"

does not belong in an episode-specific article. I would move this to the show's main page and then simply say, "References to Star Wars is a running gag on 30 Rock, and then pipe link running gag to the section that touched on this this on article's main page. I would also move, or remove "Fey, a fan of Star Wars herself, said that the weekly Star Wars joke or reference "started happening organically" when the crew realized that they had a Star Wars reference "in almost every show". Fey said that from then on "it became a thing where [they] tried to keep it going", and that even though they could not include one in every episode, they still had a "pretty high batting average". Fey attributed most of the references to Robert Carlock, whom she described as "the resident expert".[28]"

Removed.

Reception "The episode received generally mixed reception." → change to "The episode received generally mixed critical reception." and make it the first sentence of the following paragraph.

- Done.
"in which it had "a couple of funny moments"" → "which he acknowledges had "a couple of funny moments"
- Done.
"one, though, opined "this is a" → "one, though he opined,"
- Done.
wrote that the writers featured in Jenna's story was "a good thing" → wrote that featuring the writers in Jenna's story was "a good thing"
- Done.
Frank, Toofer, and Lutz and Jenna's gay friends → Frank, Toofer, Lutz and Jenna's gay friends
- Done.
plots here "clicked", → plots "clicked",
- Done.

I'm putting the article on hold, but if theses issues are addressed (especially the "Season 4" formatting issue, I will easily pass this.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Stone Mountain (30 Rock). 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:

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) 00:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]