Talk:The Natural Order

The Natural Order 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.

The Natural Order is part of the 30 Rock season 3 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
June 27, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
July 29, 2010	Good topic candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 23, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Jack Donaghy calls the state of Florida "America's Australia" in the 30 Rock episode "The Natural Order"?

Current status: Good article

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.

Television: Episode coverage 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.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Natural Order/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Beloved Freak 22:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
few minor issues
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I think it needs a little context in lead & plot to help readers not familiar with the show.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I've done a brief copyedit to tweak the prose, so if you could check to see if you agree with my edits & make sure I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning, that would be appreciated.

Prose/MoS

Plot

Can you think of a better way of putting "not hold in farts around her"? I can't! I feel it's not ideal though as "fart" is a vulgarism. I'm not sure what else to suggest though, and won't fail on this, but it you can think of a more formal way of putting it... The only phases can think of are colloquialisms, so I don't know. just a thought.

Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's also a colloquialism, but I can't think of anything better myself, and it is an improvement.--Beloved Freak 10:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"inviting her to a strip club" - is this to go to the club with just him, or as part of a regular group outing or something?

Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC

"She dresses it in several costumes including a mariachi musician, a tuxedo, and a sailor suit. " - this needs to be reworded slightly because a mariachi musician is not a costume

Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC

"When Jack arrives at her hotel room ..." - his mother's presumably? Slightly ambiguous with the mention of Liz, so perhaps make it clear that it's his other's hotel room

Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC

Production

"Actor Steve Buscemi reprised his role... for the second time" - if this is his second appearance as the character, then you don't need to put "for the second time", or use a different word instead of "reprise", as "reprise" already means to do something again, so it's a bit unclear.

Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC

Cultural references

I think this section needs a little work to make to clear what the cultural references are, and why they're relevant. It's in danger of reading like a list of trivia, of course, it's in prose and it's written well, but the facts are a little disjointed. With the race card reference, for example, you're letting the article at race card do all the work in providing context. Is there some way of using the two facts - about the race card, and the comments about Obama, to make some comment about how the episode deals with race issues? Not suggesting WP:OR of course, but is there anything in WP:RS? The two details would be examples of how the episode focused on race.
- By the way, if you can add something on this, it should also get a mention in the lead.

It doesn't really "deal with race" in any hardcore way, just that brief spat. I've cleaned it up a bit. As for the section as a whole it exists to note and explain, where reliable sourcing exists, references made within an episode. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is better, thanks. I was assuming that there wouldn't be much written on 30 Rock yet in a schoarly way, since it's quite a recent show, but I found this in google books: 30 Rock and Philosophy: We Want to Go to There. Do you have access to that? It has a chapter on "Gender, Race and Sexual Orientation at 30 Rock", which mentions the episode, p. 70 onwards. I can't see all the pages, but it seems to discuss the race card, the attempts at finding equality, and the gibbon. I don't think there's a huge amount you can use, but perhaps a mention that the episode deals with issues of race and equality, and is one of several(?) episodes to do so. I don't know.... I'm not expecting much but this would definitely be worth developing further in the future. Let me know what you think.--Beloved Freak 10:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Jack makes several references " - references to what? Again, it's a little bit like, "here is a list of cultural references", with no context. I'm sorry if I'm not articulating what I mean clearly, but this whole section just seems disjointed to me.

Cleaned up. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC

"Jack also tries to adapt a speech he had written to confront Jimmy Donaghy to this situation." - this isn't quite grammatically correct, not sure what it means exactly.

Cleaned up. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC

"Jack also suspects Paul because he met his mother in Florida, which Jack calls "America's Australia"." - I'm not sure what this means, or why it's a cultural reference. What's the relevance of Australia? This may be an example of non-US cultural differences, in which case you need to explain it a bit more!

Cleaned up. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC

Wow, maybe I was being really stupid but I never would have got that! I guess it's just not the first thing that springs to mind when I think of Australia!--Beloved Freak 10:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

TV Guide Magazine should be TV Guide
- Or should it? Let me know if that's wrong, I didn't realise they had become separate entities.--Beloved Freak 10:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the quotes from Bruce Fretts, if the ellipses are representing where you have missed bits out, they should be in square brackets to make that clear. Eg. The script [...] dares to deal with issues of race and gender from a typically irreverent perspective. and You're my good boy [...] I just love you to death. I think there's also a missing quotation mark in that sentence

Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations/references

("TV's Best Comedy gets serious") - this link appears to have moved as I'm not finding the review cited.

Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC

How does that google cache thing work; is that a permanent link now?--Beloved Freak 10:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% sure. I removed it as much as possible where it was duplicating information or simply repeating a statement from the episode. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find out if there's anything we can do.--Beloved Freak 19:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in coverage

Not sure if this is part of this criterion or criterion 1, but I think there needs to be a little more context in the lead and the plot section especially for readers who aren't familiar with the show. There's no clue as to who the characters are in relation to each other, or where they work.

A few issues to deal with; I'll put the article on hold. Let me know if you have any questions.--Beloved Freak 22:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress? Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No answers at the help desk. I'm asking at WT:GAN but just had another thought. As you'll notice above, I had a little confusion over TV Guide the website and TV Guide Magazine. This citation says it's from TV Guide Magazine, so does that mean the review was available in print? If that's the case there would be no problem as it would be verifiable in the future.

Did you have a look at the book I mentioned?--Beloved Freak 10:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAYBE it's available in print, I'm not familiar with how the net and print publications are related. As for the book, yes, but as you said the next page isn't available. I could at least use it to cite the race card incident if you want since that's nicely quoted. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yes, that would be good. The article could really use some of that critical analysis since it's available but I won't fail for that, since it does cover the main points at the moment. As for the source, I think we're going to have to lose that review unless you can be sure that it is in print. (Which it sounds like you can't!) It needs to be verifiable by readers and I don't think it will be once google updates it's cache. You never know, it might come online again at some point in the future, if they change the website around again. Might be worth keeping an eye on.--Beloved Freak 19:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added some more detail from the book. You may want to play around with that a bit, I don't know. It might be worth archiving some of the other links so that they don't suffer from link rot down the line. Everything else looks sorted now, so I'll pass it as a GA.--Beloved Freak 09:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sentence

Per the GAN, removed this sentence due to a dead review. Saving for reference.

TV Guide's Bruce Fretts said this episode "is easily the show's most grounded episode ever, even if it does feature a gibbon in a mariachi suit. The script [...] dares to deal with issues of race and gender from a typically irreverent perspective." Fretts noted that Elaine Stritch and Alec Baldwin "share a surprisingly tender scene as Colleen tells her son, 'You're my good boy [...] I just love you to death.'"^[1]

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|The Natural Order|p00546ql}}. —InternetArchiveBot (Report bug)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Natural Order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.tvguidemagazine.com/30-rock/tvs-best-comedy-gets-serious-906.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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) 23:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Natural Order. 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/20100516031049/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/28/top-nbc-primetime-shows-april-20-26-2009/17584 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/28/top-nbc-primetime-shows-april-20-26-2009/17584

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) 23:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Fretts, Bruce (April 30, 2009). "TV's Best Comedy gets serious". TV Guide Magazine. Retrieved March 18, 2010.

[guide-1] Fretts, Bruce (April 30, 2009). "TV's Best Comedy gets serious". TV Guide Magazine. Retrieved March 18, 2010.

[1]