Talk:Trivia (The Office)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bobnorwal (talk · contribs) 16:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Overall, I think this article is well on its way, and I just have a few important issues that I'd like you to address before I pass it. I'll put on hold for a week, which I think is usual and should be more than enough time to fix my complaints. And I welcome other reviewers to come in and make any of their own comments. Thanks and good luck

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I have fixed up the prose to the best of my abilities, but here is what's left:

In the lead: "Dwight goes to Sabre headquarters..." does not adequately explain what Sabre is to people unacquainted with the series.
I removed a few contractions, which the MOS generally frowns upon. There may be more.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

The ref "The Office Exclusive: 'Til Death's Lindsey Broad Befriends Pam" does not mention the episode "Pam's Replacement".
The article includes a ref of a review from IGN but does not include the review in the Reception section. Why not?
The little bits about the producer and the director of the show cite the show itself. Sure, their names are in the credits, but I highly doubt that there is any mention of how many times they have directed/produced. You'll need another ref for that.
It seems to be "Inside Pulse", not "Indie Pulse".
The Office Tally blog is of questionable reliability. You might want to consider removing it, although the IGN ref covers the same point so this is not a big deal.
RE: ref formatting, at the moment it's not perfect. Noteworthy sources should have links to the wiki articles about them. Magazines and newspapers, like The Wall Street Journal and New York magazine, should have italics around their names. Also,you can safely take out "Huffington Post Staff".

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I have watched this episode and read plenty of Wikipedia articles on other TV episodes. This article covers all the usual areas of importance and does it in a reasonably comprehensible way.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Yes, it just reports the facts with no peacocking or silliness.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It hasn't been edited much, in fact, since early this month.
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):
Screenshot is appropriate and properly tagged. Portrait of director is CC, which is great!
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

OK, I believe I've fixed all the issues.--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe it now meets the criteria for Good Article status. Congratulations. I'm passing it. Bobnorwal (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]