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

Based on one read-through, the article seems in very good shape. I will post more detailed comments here over the next week or two. Initial assessment of the GA criteria:

• Well-written: Generally OK; there are a number of awkward constructions, which I will note in the detailed comments, or fix myself. The ordering and selection of topics under section 2, Career, seem awkward too: 2.1–2.3 are fine, but it's not clear that the Sarah Palin impersonations are significant enough to be a whole stage in her career, and logically "Other work", being a miscellany, would come last.
• Factually accurate and verifiable: looks OK, except that under Detailed works, the tables As a writer and As an actress are unsourced
• Broad in its coverage: generally OK; the Sarah Palin coverage may be too detailed, considering that there is already a separate article on that; according to the article, Fey has received a number of awards or been mentioned on Top Ten lists for being influential, doing good, or changing the world, but the article doesn't mention any specific examples of influence or good deeds, so this may be a missing ingredient
• Neutral: seems OK, except possibly the coverage of reviews of her work, which seem not to mention any negative reviews (I assume there are some)
• Stable: OK; some vandalism, no edit wars
• Illustrated: OK, reasonable number of photos, all have correct licenses, have captions, and are in the correct sections

--Uncia (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is good. The one thing that's missing is a sense of why she is interesting. We need a really good one or two sentence sound bite that can go in the first paragraph and draw people into the article. Any ideas? I found one I like buried deep in the video clips of the 2009 TIME 100 stuff. Belinda Luscombe said, "Tina Fey is on this list because she is very smart and she is very funny, both those things equally," and "[She] has opened the door for dozens and dozens of other funny women to step forward." It's at The People Behind The People but it's buried inside a Flash file and there's no way to link to it directly; you have to navigate to Tina Fey.

Here's a more accessible reference: the same words are in a longer clip, but you don't have to navigate to it. --Uncia (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about adding that video clip to the lead. Doesn't seem encyclopedic to add to the lead. Maybe adding this to the Media section. What do you think? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not common to have quotations in the lede, but there are good precedents. Look at the ledes of these Featured Articles: James Thomas Aubrey, Jr. (1st paragraph), Rudolph Cartier (last paragraph), and William Gibson (last paragraph). In all cases a brief quote summarizes the importance of the person. We need something to summarize the importance of Tina Fey. --Uncia (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these article examples you mentioned have something in common, the people have passed away. Fey is very much alive. I'm not saying this is wrong, it's just that it's not suitable to add in the lead. Like I said, this would perfectly fit in the media section. Angelina Jolie's article is FA and doesn't have a quote on her lead, but does have quotes in her media section. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Gibson is still alive. --Uncia (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. But, the problem is that the quote in the lead does need to be mentioned somewhere in the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other points:

• The lede and the infobox both say she is a producer. Is this true? It's not mentioned anywhere else in the article.
  • As of now, she's the producer of 30 Rock, since she's the creator of the show.
    • OK, please add a note about this when you expand the 30 Rock section, so we'll have a mention and a source. IMDB says she is the executive producer and Jerry Kupfer is the producer. --Uncia (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would ---> "As of September 2009, Fey is executive producer of 30 Rock", work? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "She has received ..." numerous awards, but this counts ones that she got individually and that went to shows she worked on, so she didn't actually receive them all, right?
• "In the series, Fey portrays Liz Lemon, the head writer of TGS with Tracy Jordan, a fictional sketch comedy series." I would omit this, as it is more detail than we need and in fact is more detail than is in the article.
  • How 'bout ---> "In the series, Fey portrays Liz Lemon, the head writer of a fictional sketch comedy series"? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How 'bout ---> "In the series, Fey portrays the head writer of a fictional sketch comedy series"? We won't mention the name Liz Lemon again for another two pages, so it's just clutter to mention it here. --Uncia (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would omit Dratch & Fey, as it doesn't flow well here and only gets one paragraph in the article.
  • Removed.
• "feature film debut" - wrong, same comment as I made under Feature films.
  • Removed.

--Uncia (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of problems with the references - in many cases the footnoted work does not contain the fact it is supposed to support, but mysteriously another nearby source does contain the fact. So nearly every fact here has a source here, but often not the source it says. It's like all the sources got scrambled at some point. This needs to be fixed. The items I noticed that need (correct) sources are:

• Father's Scottish ancestry
• Brother name and birth year
• Bachelor of Arts in drama
• Zenovia

The inset quote is a single quote with two sources, which doesn't make any sense: if it's a continuous quote it should all be from one source, and if it's not a continuous quote it should not be formatted like this. One of the sources is offline and I can't check it, and the online source discusses this subject but doesn't have any of this quote.

I found an online source for the whole quote here. This is probably the same as the offline second source, as it is the same author and close date. --Uncia (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fey's mother's name is variously spelled Zenovia or Zenobia in this article - which is correct? Neither is sourced here.

Footnote 2 is formatted as a reference, but is really a footnote. The material appears to be trivia and is unsourced and so perhaps would be better omitted. If you really want to include it as a footnote, it needs to be separated from the references in a Notes section; see WP:REFNOTE. --Uncia (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I got all of the items on the top. Also, I replaced the footnote with a ((cite episode)) ref. If I missed something, please let me know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources say that her brother is eight years older, but that's not enough to pinpoint his birth year. Suggest rewriting this just to say he's eight years older. --Uncia (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall good. I made some clarifications, but there were some phrases I couldn't figure out and that need to be fixed.

• "By 1994, she was invited to join the cast of The Second City, where she performed eight shows a week." Several points:

• "By 1994" is awkward - was she invited "in 1994", or at some unknown date which was in or before 1994?
  • I reworded the sentence.
• Similarly, when was she performing 8 times a week?
  • For over two years.
• Who invited her?
• This item needs a source or sources

• "where she performed alongside Scott Adsit, Kevin Dorff, Rachel Dratch, Jenna Jolovitz, and Jim Zulevic" - does this refer to both revues, or were some in one revue and some in the other? Neither of the two sources gives this list of players.

• • Yeah, the cast is for both revues. Also, I've added sources.

• Reference 19, the Marie Claire piece "Tina Fey on Top", is not a great reference because it is mostly made up and it's not clear to the naive reader which parts (if any) are factual. Since you have another reference for this fact, I suggest omitting the Marie Claire reference.

• • I removed it.

• "she met friend and future co-star Amy Poehler" is awkward because it mixes times. Presumably they weren't friends when they first met. "Co-star" refers to particular shows; it's not a permanent condition. Probably this phrase should be rewritten something like "she befriended Amy Poehler, who would become her co-star in ...."

--Uncia (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I just removed the Amy Poehler thing, not really important to include, unless you think its notable to have. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section had a lot clumsy and repetitious writing. I rewrote some of it, and it is not bad now.

This section had a lot of details that, although possibly correct, were not in the sources, and I have taken out some of these and marked the others as needing citations. My impression, based on looking at a tiny bit of the page history, is that the references were replaced at one point because they were no longer on the web, but unfortunately the new references don't support the claims here.

• When was Fey a co-writer of Weekend Update? Did it start before she became co-anchor? There's no source for this info, and it needs to be put in the proper chronological order.
  • I couldn't find anything, so I removed it.
• This is misquoted: "Michaels, in regards to this, noted that Fey and Poehler 'have been the strongest thing on the show....'" The source says "These women have been the strongest thing...", and from the context "these women" refers to all the women working on SNL, not just Fey and Poehler. This needs to be fixed, although with this correction it's no longer a very interesting quote for this article, and perhaps should be deleted.
  • That was my bad. I read the quote wrong. Anyways, I removed it.
• "The reception to the teaming of Fey and Poehler was positive." The reference doesn't say this; the most it says is that the author considers it "SNL's most notable step forward".
  • I added a review.
• Many of the details in the 6th paragraph, beginning "In September 2005, Fey went on maternity leave", are not in the source. It might make more sense to move the verifiable parts of this to Personal life, because it doesn't seem to have had much effect on her career. Things that are not sourced include the September 2005 date, that she went on leave after giving birth (usually maternity leave starts shortly before giving birth), that Sanz covered for two episodes.
  • Do you want me to remove it?
    • Yes, let's just take that paragraph out. I like the quote about the verbal agreement with the baby, but I don't see a good way to work it into the narrative. --Uncia (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, the quote is genius. Maybe adding it to the PL section? But, in a reworded way. What do you think? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about this wording under Personal life?

They have a daughter, Alice Zenobia Richmond, who was born on September 10, 2005, during Fey's tenure at SNL. Fey returned to the show on October 22, saying "I had to get back to work. NBC has me under contract; the baby and I have only a verbal agreement."

You can omit that the baby was born in New York City, and that they lived there (not that important, and unsourced anyway). Then take out the whole paragraph about the baby in the SNL section. --Uncia (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Uncia (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall good. I reordered and reorganized the text a little bit to make it flow smoother. Some areas that still need attention:

• There's almost no description of the show itself; there's more information about the plot than about the series! What's the show about? (This has shifted since the pilot.) Why is it called 30 Rock? Who are the stars? Who are the producers and directors? Is Fey the head writer as well as the star?
  • I "worked" on the section, modeled after Aaron Sorkin. I thought it would "work" just like his article. Guess not.
• "She acknowledged similarities between Liz and her own life when she became head writer on SNL, primarily a heavy focus on her job." This is garbled. In the cited clip Fey says that "the character Liz is basically like me, but she has a different life than me" and "she's more focused on work probably than I am now", which are the opposite of what the article says. I suggest just deleting this sentence.
  • Removed.
• "The show's ratings improved when NBC moved it to the Thursday night "Must See TV" comedy block." - a couple of problems with this:

• The source doesn't say that ratings improved, and in fact could not say that because it was written just before the move occurred.
• at the time of the move this block was no longer called Must See TV; the source makes it clear that this was a former name. The block is now called "Comedy Night Done Right", but the source doesn't say that. I suggest omitting "Must See TV" and just say "the Thursday night comedy block".
  • Done [on the second one]. So, what do you want me to do with the first one?

• Upon closer examination, the ratings did not improve after the move, so I say let's take this whole sentence out. According to reference 48 (Variety), the pilot ratings were 2.9 rating / 8 share / 8.13 million viewers, and according to the NBC press release announcing the renewal for 2007-2008, the ratings for the first season were 2.7 rating / 7 share / 5.8 million viewers. The show didn't take off until the second season. --Uncia (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Has been removed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's unlikely that production resumed immediately upon the end of the writer's strike, as the article currently says. I have marked this as "verification needed".
  • I removed it.

--Uncia (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section is too long for the rest of the article. It covers about 6 weeks, but is longer that the section covering Fey's very successful 9 years with SNL and is longer that the section covering Fey's very successful 3 years with 30 Rock. I suggest that it be cut down to one or two paragraphs and moved under Other work. I would keep some description of the initial sketch (keep the web promo image too), a brief summary of the other appearances, and the Emmy nomination (which she might still win). If the sketches had any lasting impact and was not just a fad you can mention that too (I haven't seen any evidence for this). Include the separate Wikipedia article; you can work it into the narrative, for example you could lead with "In September and October 2008 Fey performed a series of parodies of Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, on Saturday Night Live." --Uncia (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can give me some suggestions for the summary, due to the fact that I'm not "good" in that area, I'll take it. Also, I've removed a couple of info., please let me know how you feel about it. I have a question, would adding Palin's appearance ratings be helpful to the section. [1] --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of a paragraph like this. It's scrunched down from the current section mostly by omitting the press reactions (trumped by the Emmy award) and the public-figure reactions (too dated now, I think). I added the ratings improvement, a little bit of text tweaking to make it flow better, and a lede sentence summarizing the whole thing. (If you want to become a better summarizer, study news stories in newspapers—news writers are master summarizers. See News style.) --Uncia (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In September and October 2008 Fey guested on Saturday Night Live to perform a series of parodies of Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. On the 34th season premiere episode, aired September 13, 2008, Fey imitated Palin in a sketch, alongside Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton. Their repartee included Clinton needling Palin about her "Tina Fey glasses".^[1] The sketch quickly became NBC.com's most-watched viral video ever, with 5.7 million views by the following Wednesday.^[2] Fey reprised this role on the October 4 show,^[3] and on the October 18 show where she was joined by the real Sarah Palin. The October 18 show had the best ratings of any SNL show since 1994.^[4] Fey won an Emmy in the category of Outstanding Guest Actress in a Comedy Series for her impersonation of Palin.^[5]

Alright, I've added this. Thank you and I'll be sure to study news stories so I can be a better summarizer. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I predict that it will one day be much more interesting to look back and see how Tina Fey, a professional expert at speaking other people's words, will become, by passing into politics herself (At the peril of her fans who will dazzle her with their adulation, and only later realize the harm they do) a sort of inverted clone of Sarah Palin, who, for whatever else she is, speaks her own mind (at her own peril, and dazzled by her own morbid light). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.207.4 (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Because this is a miscellaneous section, I recommend moving it to the end of the Career section. --Uncia (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing is good on this one, but there are lots of problems with the sources.

• There are a number of places where (it appears) the status of in-progress films was updated, but the references were not updated, so there's no reference for the claimed current status. These include:

• role in Ponyo is Lisa
  • Added source.
• Ponyo was released in August 2009
  • The source does say it, but removed.
• The Invention of Lying: source says she will work on it, not that it is finished
  • Different source.
• Date Night: start date and this plot summary are not in source
  • Added different source.
• Oobermind: source says they are in talks, not that she has agreed

Different source.

• Martin & Orloff: source does not say it premiered at SXSW
  • Added source.
    • Better, but still doesn't say it premiered there. IMDB claims it premiered at the 2002 US Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen. --Uncia (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "She made her feature film debut as writer and co-star of the 2004 teen comedy Mean Girls." What does "feature film debut" mean here? She was already in the feature film Martin & Orloff.
  • Removed.
• Is there any current info on the forthcoming Sacha Baron Cohen film? What's here is 3-1/2 years old, and all I found online was listings in movie databases that say it's still forthcoming. Per WP:CRYSTAL I suggest that we take this film out unless there is is recent reliable info on it.
  • 2007 and 2007 sources. So technically it's two years.
• Baby Mama: "white-trash schemer": although probably accurate, this description is not in the source.
  • Do you have a suggestion? You know, I'm not suppose to copy everything in the sources, just summarize it. WP:COPYVIO.

--Uncia (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall good. The title, "In the media", is much too broad—nearly the whole article is about Fey's position "in the media". How about calling it "Other recognition"?

No, I don't want to change the title. See Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Reese Witherspoon, etc., as examples.

• "Viewed as a sex symbol" - by whom?
  • Well, it's there, but I removed it.
• People's Most Beautiful: article says she was named in 2006, 2008, and 2009, but the references are for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 lists. Also the article says "In 2007, she was included in People's 100 Most Beautiful issue." - isn't this the same thing as being on the list?
  • Fixed. The Beautiful issue is not the same as the Beautiful people. They're different issues.
• Rolling Stone: is this really an "annual" list? It doesn't say this in the article; it seems to be a one-shot list.
  • Removed "annual". When I was working on the article, I checked the Rolling Stone article and it said that the "100 People Who Are Changing America" was annual. Looking now, it's not even mentioned.

--Uncia (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, a few glitches in the references.

• "Jeff Richmond, a former composer on Saturday Night Live." He's also a current composer on 30 Rock; wouldn't this be a better description?
  • I was thinking of adding that.
• Ref 110, "Tina Fey Pregnant", is a dead link. This seems to be an unnecessary link since all the info is in ref 109, so maybe just delete it.
  • Removed.
• "In addition, Fey favors the right side of her face when acting": source says Liz Lemon, not Fey
  • Couldn't we just say that as Liz Lemon she favors her right side?
    • OK. Also take out "In addition" which doesn't make any sense here. --Uncia (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "support of Autism Speaks": not in source; ref 115 (Singh et al) is a scientific paper and probably shouldn't be cited here
  • Replaced.
• Global Envision: source seems to say she is supporting Mercy Corps, not Global Envision; which is correct?
  • Fixed.

--Uncia (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I added some stuff (with references of course) about Tina fey selling her Upper West Side Condo for $2.2 million. I'm pretty new to the whole Wikipedia writing and editing process but I thought this was good knowledge and the reference is unbiased and neutral.

In June 2010, it was announced that Fey and her family would be selling their Upper West Side Condominium in Manhattan, New York for $2,295,000 and moving to a 1,873 square feet, five bedroom condominium in the same neighbourhood that was purchased for $3.4 million.[130]

Is this good example of the wikipedia-esque style of writing or not. Feel free to edit and commment. Thanks.

(talk) --30Rockfan

(30Rockfan (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm unenthusiastic about tables in general, because I think few people read them, they are vandal magnets, they are hard to keep up to date, they usually repeat information that is already in prose, and in general are more trouble than they are worth. (Not that I want to discourage you or anything.) It appears that these two tables are simply selected and reformatted from tables at IMDB, which raises the question: Does Wikipedia really need its own copy of an IMDB table, or could we just link to their table from the External links section and avoid the maintenance and vandalism headaches? --Uncia (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't like the tables, but WP:ACTOR uses them. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an actress: Oobermind: says her character is Ralena, but IMDB says it is Roxanne Ritchi. Which is correct? Also, shouldn't the note say Voice for this one? --Uncia (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed [on both]. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same comment as for Detailed works: Do we really need our own copy of an IMDB table? I think this table is not even a selection: it shows everything in the IMDB table. --Uncia (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Angelina Jolie#Awards, Jon Hamm#Awards and nominations, David Schwimmer#Awards and nominations, etc. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, no changes needed. --Uncia (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, no changes needed. --Uncia (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Using the Media offices box is incorrect, it is for "people holding posts in the media".
• Categories: American environmentalists - no evidence that she is an American environmentalist

--Uncia (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the category. I'm not so sure what to do with the media box. It was there when I was working on the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACTOR says in part, "Succession boxes where the succession box relates to the subject's work or notability as an actor are deprecated." So I think you would be justified in removing the Media offices succession box. --Uncia (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Reviewing is a lot of work! This article is within a hairsbreadth of GA status. My assessment:

1. Well-written: Pass. It is clear and grammatically correct and complies with the required MOS sections.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Pass. It is thoroughly footnoted, I have checked all the footnotes and the incorrect ones have been corrected. All statements are traced to reliable sources and there is no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage: Pass except for two areas: description of the 30 Rock series is unbalanced and has too much about the pilot, and the lede is technically complete but doesn't capture the spirit of the subject.

4. Neutral: Pass, presents a balanced view of the subject, with a proportionate mixture of positive and negative views.

5. Stable: Pass, no edit wars or content disputes.

6. Illustrated: Pass, has reasonable number of images, with correct licenses and descriptive captions, and they are in the correct sections of the article.

Here's what I propose to you to bring this to GA status:

• Put about one paragraph of material describing 30 Rock as it is running today. Since there are a number of separate articles on the series, we don't need very much, but we need enough that the reader will learn "what the show is about". This would include the sitcom setting, a brief description of the roles and perhaps personalities of the main characters (only the top 3 or 4 main characters, not all the regular characters), any recurrent themes, and the origin of the name 30 Rock. In an ideal world you would be able to plagiarize this from the lede of 30 Rock, but that lede is not very good so you'll have to dig a little. Remember to give sources.
  • Alright, I removed the first two paragraphs. Tell me how you feel about it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, well, that seems drastic, but it does solve the balance problem. So it's OK. --Uncia (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The lede, although accurate and summarizing most of the article, is boring. In summary it says "blah blah appeared in TV series and movies blah blah won awards blah blah", just like lots of other actors. We don't see what's special about Tina Fey that other people don't have. I'll work with you to come up with something about this; we really only need one sentence, but it has to be a sentence that captures what's special about her. One thing that you don't see all the time is comedians appearing on lists of the most influential people and of people who are changing the world, and I think this may be the angle that will show her uniqueness.
  • I wouldn't have a problem adding that she's appeared in the Time 100 to the lead, or that she was Entertainer of the Year by the Associated Press for her Palin impersonation, or the charities she supports. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the AP award would be good. The problem I have with the various Top lists is that no one knows what the criteria are. It's an honor to be named to the TIME 100, but what exactly did the person accomplish that got them on the list? Nobody knows. Let's use the AP award, but include that it is given for having the greatest impact on culture and entertainment in 2008 (which is stated in the cited article). --Uncia (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, forget the Time 100 and let's include the AP award. Now, how should it be written? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about this? Replace the existing sentence in "In the media" with this:

The newspaper editors and broadcast producers of the Associated Press voted Fey the AP Entertainer of the Year as the performer who had the greatest impact on culture and entertainment in 2008, citing her impression of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live.

Then move the last sentence of the lede first paragraph ("After graduating...") to be the first sentence of the second paragraph, because this is the start of her career and doesn't logically follow her list of awards. Then add this text at the end of the new first paragraph:

She was singled out as the performer who had the greatest impact on culture and entertainment in 2008 by the Associated Press, who gave her their AP Entertainer of the Year award.

--Uncia (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done [on both]. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is negotiable, so if you don't agree that these are needed improvements we can talk about it. I'll be generous on time too, but I doubt you'll need even the normal seven day period to complete this. Since you have been speedily correcting the problems, I'm not going to put it on hold, I'll just wait until you make these improvements and then I'll pass it. If you can fix the other points I've brought up, that would be great, but the above two items are all that I require for GA. --Uncia (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes the Good article criteria and I will list it as a Good Article. --Uncia (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review. I appreciate it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]