Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/The Office (U.S. TV series) season 1/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Office (U.S. TV series) season 1

[edit]
edit | discuss
The Office (season 1)
7 articles
"Pilot"
"Diversity Day"
"Health Care"
"The Alliance"
"Basketball"
"Hot Girl"
Contributor(s): Mastrchf91, Gen. Quon

FL + GAs = GT. --Nergaal (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Although I did contribute to about half of these, and I beefed up quite a few, I support this overall promotion. (Also, I changed the Contributors... You missed my name, and I don't think Grapple X worked on these).--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, for some reason I thought he did the work that you actually did. Must be because of the same initial. Sorry about that!. Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All seems in order. Thankfully it's Gervais-free, too. And I'll take credit if you're handing it out, haven't edited a single article here though. :P GRAPPLE X 21:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well done and complete. Glimmer721 talk 02:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose just had a quick look at the FL, I know it's only "good topic" but it has some things that should be addressed, right now it's not up to scratch:
  • Main list, there's a raw URL showing, which promotes link rot.
  • For that ref (ref 17), what makes lamoltihalstein.wordpress.com a reliable source?
  • It fails to meet WP:DASH per the MOS.
  • References are incomplete, e.g. ref 4 has a publication date and an author which should be added. Others should be checked.
  • Refs 19 and 20 are dead.
  • Graph caption doesn't need a period.
  • "a single-DVD" why is that hyphenated.
  • TVGuide should be TV Guide right? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that wasn't supposed to be snippy, because I wasn't trying to be snarky. I just meant where in the article are there dash violations? I'll fix them, I just can't find them.--Gen. Quon (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was one on the Pilot article, but I fixed. TBrandley 04:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you all for your good work in fixing the list. As opposed to those who think this is just about grouping stuff together for yet another star, those of you who've worked to fix issues have improved Wikipedia. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note of course I assume that all the "supporters" have checked over the constituent members of this proposed good topic for ongoing compliance with their various criteria? I would hate to think the that just because a few green plus signs and the odd bronze star awarded a few years ago would be sufficient for all the supporters? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be fair, none of the concerns raised above are hugely serious and took one editor a brief period of time to address; and I can't actually see the MOS:DASH non-compliance myself despite having looked twice. As is my usual practice when a nomination comes in here, I gave each of the GA articles a look and was satisfied; and assumed in good faith that the FL would have reached that status after having been thoroughly vetted by several editors and at least one delegate. GTCs move slowly and those with any opposition are often left longer to ensure they aren't promoted with issues left unaddressed, your four-day old concerns will be seen to long before this is considered for closing. GRAPPLE X 21:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My concerns are, just that, my concerns. This process seems little more than a "tick-in-the-box" process (i.e. all have a star/green cross, vote "support"!) and I've suddenly discovered topics being nominated with main articles which are way below current standards. If a main article/list was promoted two or three years ago (e.g. main list here was promoted in March 2008), it needs a closer look. I think this featured topic process needs analysis, especially given all the glib "support" for a topic with 14+ articles where it's clear the articles haven't been looked at at all by any of the voters. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will for sure agree with The Rambling Man for en-dashes. TBrandley 22:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This is not FLC, FLRC, FAC, FAR, GAN, or GAR. This is FTC, and here the only question should be whether a group of articles together meet the Featured topic criteria. We rely on the other Wikipedia projects to determine the quality of individual articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment then the process needs amending to at least ensure that the constituent parts of a topic at least still even vaguely meet their criteria. The fact you're happy to support topics whose articles contain maintenance tags is staggering and really undermines the value of a "featured topic". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with you pointing out deficiencies in topic articles during the featured topic nomination process. It is always good to try to improve articles. My main point is that we can not be expected to do all the work of GAR, FLRC, and FAR here. I have always considered it a positive thing that featured topics relies on the other quality assessment projects on Wikipedia. If you'd like, we can discuss this further on the talk page. It's not really appropriate to continue this discussion on a nomination.
  • Support. Meets criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Meets criteria. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)_season_1/archive1&oldid=1138452353"