Jump to content

Talk:Argus (30 Rock)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleArgus (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.
Good topic starArgus (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
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2010Good article nomineeListed
January 10, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Untitled

[edit]

Does anyone else notice that Don Argus is name of the retiring chairman of BHP Billiton, the world's largest mining company? Is that just a co-incidence or is it intentional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.157.122 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: --RAIN the ONE (Talk) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The only sugguestion I have is in the production section. Paragraph three begins stating: "An actual peacock was featured here." I think it would sound better if you start it by stating "During the episode Jack Donaghy inherits Argus, Don Geiss's beloved pet peacock." then state an actual peacock was used, then speak about the feathers hitting her face and puppeteers being used. It's up to you how you would like to word it of course.
    In the reception section italics need to be added to IGN and Aol's TV Squad
    Comment IGN and TV Squad are websites not magazine publications, so they shouldn't be italicized (Per WP:MOSTITLE). - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I got it, not sure. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that better so that's done with now.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    No #:::Dablinks so that's fine. Checklinks reveals that ref numbers 10 and 13 change domain. Don't think that's even a problem though is it as I think that website always comes up on the checker, you can strike the comment if you think the same.
    The Star-Ledger's publisher is missing from ref 20. The same for Paste's publisher in 21.
    Yeah, the IGN sources always function like that. Well, the thing is that if I add the publisher to those two refs. then I got to do with all of them, and I'd rather not. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably best to add them all in then. All readily available information.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    The only image used has all the correct tags and is already verified.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    So not much to do really as it was a well written article, an interesting read for the casual reader. Informative and you didn't go off the subject. Page formatted really well. So yes, it's nearly there now and it shall be passed soon no doubt.


Reviewer: RAIN the ONE (Talk) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, it's most appreciated. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations I'll pass it now. You corrected my suggestions really fast and were willing to include the publishers in a quick turn around.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 18:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you want me to do, I'll do it, cause the article's fate is in your hands, so. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Argus (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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Argus (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) 19:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Argus (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) 20:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argus_(30_Rock)&oldid=1205321028"