Talk:Christmas Party (The Office)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eshlare (talk · contribs) 20:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Eshlare (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checks against GA criteria

1 (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; Mostly
- (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Yes

2 (a)it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; Yes
- (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, Yes
- (c) it contains no original research. Yes

3 (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail Yes

Article is both neutral and stable. Images are used appropriately. One fair use image which is used to illustrate the subject in a way that a free image could not.

Specific Improvements

Lead

"the office throws a Christmas" - missing word (Party)
wikilink Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Single-Camera Picture Editing for a Comedy Series and Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series
"The episode received critical acclaim from critics" - two words used which are inherently derivates of the same base. Would change to "critical acclaim from reviewers".
I'd also specify in the image caption that Kate Flannery is an actress, not a character - i.e actress Kate Flannery.

Plot

"received Pam Beesly's (Jenna Fischer) name for the first time this year". This creates a tense conflict and also dates the article. I'd simply change to "receives Pam Beesly's (Jenna Fischer) name.
"Michael Scott" is spelled wrong!
"staff guns" is far to colloquial. "staff competes"?

Production

"driving force of the mayhem" is written twice, once as an unsubtantiated sentence

Reception

Perhaps mention the audience scorecard for the Television Pity review?
- All those points aside, this a comprehensive and interesting article which is also concise, and accessible to someone who isn't familiar with the show. I found it very interesting to read never mind review.
- On hold for seven days. I'd have no problems passing this as a Good Article once a few minor faults are ammended. Eshlare (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe I have addressed all of the issues. I didn't add the audience scorecard, because I feel that, since it isn't peer-reviewed, it shouldn't be included. Other than that, all better.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pass Eshlare (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]