Jump to content

Talk:The Office (American TV series)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
  • format references
  • "Emmy & Peabody" – why &?
  • "e on September 25, 2008." – incomplete link?
  • " Format" completely uncited?
  • pipe the "main"/"further information" messages using the l1 parameter (check docs at {{main}} for details)
  • resolve the citation needed tags

Gary King (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done with these, except with the 2 fact tags, 2 unformatted refs which are in fact dead, and 6 other dead links. Nergaal (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why? Nergaal (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's because the method used on IMDB to gather the information has not been proven to always be accurate, or up-to-date, and they don't always verify the information they put there. I can assure you that IMDB is not considered reliable; feel free to ask at WP:FILM for a second opinion, though. Gary King (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know a way to reference a text like:

"A complete script is written for each episode of The Office. However, actors are given opportunities to improvise during shooting. "Our shows are 100 percent scripted," Fischer explained. "They put everything down on paper. But we get to play around a little bit, too. Steve and Rainn are brilliant improvisers."

without using blogs and without spending several goood hours? Nergaal (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't a search be done online for that exact quote? This text will need a reference that has the quote exactly like that. Gary King (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but this is a GAN, not a FAC... Nergaal (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only major difference between the two is that GAN has a single reviewer while FAC has several. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reaally bad idea since that will lead to huge inconsistencies between quality of GAs. Nergaal (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually look at the criteria 2:

Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;[2]
(b) at minimum, 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, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
(c) it contains no original research

Reliable sources are reqiured ONLY for direct quotations, statistics, published opinions, controversial statements, etc. I believe that most of the links you have listed are used in sections that do not fall in these categories... Nergaal (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using WP:RS as my guideline for reliable sources, which is a guideline for all articles so it should be met before WP:GA? is met. Gary King (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is to simply remove the unreliable sources and leave the text as it is, since the GA requirements do not ask for those parts of the text to be referenced since they are not quotations, etc? Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the unreliable references that I brought up source content that would be considered original research without references, so the unreliable references should be replaced with reliable ones. It's most likely that the information is indeed true, but just that it's better to be sure about it and use a reliable reference for them. Gary King (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issues have not been addressed so I am failing this nomination. Gary King (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Office_(American_TV_series)/GA1&oldid=1083349748"