Talk:Murder (The Office)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe it's all over! It's so strange not to be looking forward to a new episode on Thursday. —Ed!^(talk) 22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The first was the seasonal arc of Dunder Mifflin going out of business and its purchase by Sabre." -- I think here you mean "season-long" and also you might want to link to Sabre and/or note when the sale is actually completed. Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, expounding on story arc resolutions might be a good thing in general.
"The episode explores the idea that Michael is positively motivated according to his subconscious, according to series creator and episode director Greg Daniels." -- I don't understand this at all. It might need some explaining.
Basically, what this is trying to say is that, to the audience, we don't really understand Michael's motivations until the very end. At the very end, however, it is revealed that what Michael was doing is ultimately the best choice for the office. It's kind of a weird thing to explain, and the commentary track just refers to it as "positively motivated by his subconscious", which is weird.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The producers tried to sell the game, although this never came to fruition." -- Do you mean that they tried to market it as an actual product to sell in the real world? If so that should be clearer.
"Chun crafted the cold open after being inspired by the second season episode "The FIght" and wanting more "Karate Dwight"." -- It might help to explain the cold open, as it's not currently discussed in the plot section.
"...was a "major step up" from the "disappointing" last two episodes." -- Which two episodes?
Duplicate link too returns two results. The disambiguation links show no problems, and there are no problems with external links. The images appear to be properly licensed, and I see no issues with article stability or neutrality.

Placing the article on hold pending a few fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 01:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does everything look now? Thanks for reviewing?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Great work! —Ed!^(talk) 08:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]