Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Office (U.S. season 3)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 23:50, 19 February 2008.

The Office (U.S. season 3)

[edit]

I've worked with this list for a while, and I believe it's ready for FL status. The article is well detailed and well referenced, and I believe it would make a fine addition to the list....of featured lists! -Mastrchf91- 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedent, it should be titled The Office (season 3). -- Scorpion0422 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, I think that The Office (U.S. TV series) (season 3) is probably the best option because it corresponds with the parent article, as well as the majority of other Office articles.-Mastrchf91- 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Yeah, I was a bit confused on where to place it. But, looking through, I noticed that articles similar to this (Lost (season 2), Lost (season 3), The Simpsons season 9) were classified as FLs, so I presumed that it was the best place to place it.-Mastrchf91- 13:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, I was having the same issue when I wanted to list Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1), but as (1) there are no season pages at Featured Articles, only FLs, and (2) WP:GA says specifically "no lists", I listed my nom here, too. - -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This raises an interesting issue: do we define an article type by others like it or by what is actually in the article? Looking at the Simpson example provided above, that is surely more of a list than anything else. But with the addition of the cast, crew, and reception sections (all of which are more prose than list), the shape of the article changes drastically. That's great information to have, and I think the other articles you've mentioned should have them, but it makes it into more of a standard article and less of a list, I think. Drewcifer (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My main reasoning on placing it here is that the main content of the list is the list of episodes itself. I for one don't believe that the list should be a FLC unless it contains some form of prose. For a season of a TV series, I wouldn't feel that the list is complete without some mentioning of the cast, crew, awards, etc. But because the article itself is about the episodes composed in a list form, I'd believe that it would be better to be placed here than WP:GA.-Mastrchf91- 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Perhaps a discussion needs to take place at either the FL's talk page, or the FA's talk page. It would probably make more sense to have this article, the Lost and Smallville season articles moved over to Featured Article content, as the list of episodes featured isn't the main part of the article. (Hope that made sense.) Pages like The Simpsons' season articles are probably better off left here as FLs. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments From the top:

  • As discussed above, definately move the article so that the words "Season 1" are in parentheses, without the capital letter, and consider moving to The Office (U.S. TV series) (season 3) or similar to avoid confusion with the British series.
 Done -Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A personal preference, but I'd like to see the word "24" in the article's lead written as "twenty-four".
 Done- Looks good this way. -Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than the infobox, there is no mention which network the show aired on. It does mention it's produced in association with NBC Universal Television Studios, but that doesn't necessarily mean it airs on NBC.
 Done -Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steve Carell, Mindy Kaling, Paul Lieberstein, and B.J. Novak are all wikilinked twice, as is Pam Beesly.
 Done -Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any sources for any other actors? (I'm not sure if this is necessary. Is this information verified through the episode itself, much like plot is, since the names of the cast appear on screen in the credits, or should it be verified through another source?)
I felt that the information is verified through the episode credits, as well as being backed up by the main page. I had some trouble finding sources, but if you'd like, I guess I could dig a little deeper :D. -Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know for sure what the rule is on this. IMO, the on screen credits would satisfy, but someone else may think otherwise. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Office (U.S. TV series) mentions plans for Mackenzie Crook, Martin Freeman and Lucy Davis from the British version. Is it worth mentioning here?
I thought about this while writing, but since it didn't work out, and no major efforts were actually made to feature them, I felt that it wasn't notable. But I can always add it if you or anyone else would like. -Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine. Thinking about it some more, it seems kinda trivial. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Season 3 was also popular for it's use of non-mainstream songs for its soundtrack, using songs decades old, as well as less notable songs from the 21st century." - The reference doesn't back that statement up. The lead says "If a song is popular now, don’t expect to hear it on “The Office” until late next year ... This NBC comedy ... avoids the template most series use for their soundtracks. Currently the common approach is to tap an obscure band’s material." James Blunt, John Mayer, Styx, Pat Benetar and Black Eyed Peas are hardly "non-mainstream". A simple removal of the prefix "non-" will suffice, but also note that the reference didn't state that the use of popular songs made season 3 popular.
 Done -Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Mastrchf91- 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any other critical reviews of the season or episodes, negative as well as positive, other than just EW's? I'm not sure about having EW's comments in a stand-alone box, either. Can it be worked into the prose?
  • Haven't got a chance to look at other views, but as for the box, I thought that since the statement was applauding such a drastic change of plot that pertains to this season only, it might be good to put it in a box. But if needed, I can work into prose.
 Done -Mastrchf91- 04:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything be included in a section about production details? Where it is filmed (ie, a real office or a studio (IIRC, the first season was filmed in a real, working office, and then production moved to a studio set). Where is it filmed (ie, city, state), the length of time to film an episode. Look at Smallville (season 1) for ideas.
 Done -Mastrchf91- 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "CREW", as well as producers and writers, consider including directors. Do they have a team of directors, are they freelanced, or both? If the information is available, why did J.J. Abrams, Joss Whedon and Tucker Gates, who are associated with (for lack of a better word) cult programming, direct. Same for movie director Harold Ramis. Are they fans of the show, did they request it, or were they approached for a particular reason?
 Done -Mastrchf91- 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I went ahead and removed it.-Mastrchf91- 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now, I think -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work. Episodes should be surrounded in quotation marks (e.g., "Gay Witch Hunt"). Too many multiple links, you'll need to fish them out. Use the DVD cover for the infobox image. The Cast section needs splitting into separate paragraphs, and the lead section could use some expansion with information actually pertaining to the plot of the 3rd season rather than just background information about The Office in general. Can any external links be found that could be relevant? A link to the official website's section on season 3? All Movie Guide review or something? I also see multiple instances of spacing between the period and the reference (i.e., "Sentence. [1]" as opposed to "Sentence.[1]", which is the correct format). Each episode of The Office follows on from its predecessor, and so it is possible to write about the plot of the story in this article. I haven't read the full article (I'm reluctant due to spoilers ;)), but just a quick glance over it shows me that it really doesn't discuss the plot at all or what happens in the season (like it does on the main article). I personally don't feel that it is ready for FL status, or rather, if it even is a list at all. Spebi 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image added, quotations fixed, a few multile links fixed. Split cast section. I'm hesitant to add plot, as that would move it further over into the GA/FA category instead of FL. The way it currently is, I believe it's best listed in FL. -Mastrchf91- 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of how much content you can stuff into the article, it is primarily a list. ON that note, the list of episodes should appear directly under the table of contents rather than at the end, because that is the most important part of the article. Strong oppose as incomprehensive and for several other errors I see that haven't been fixed yet. The lead still doesn't have a summary of what happens in the season, rather, it just gives technical information. Some episode titles (in prose) are still missing quotation marks, and regardless of whether it is referred to in a quote or not, The Office (I'm referring to the show, not the actual office) must have italics. Captions are not sufficient, and the only image that it uses (excluding the DVD cover) is missing a fair use rationale. There are several problems in this article that need to be fixed up before it can be promoted. Spebi 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think that inserting a plot would be something you would want to include in the article if you want to satisfy 1b of the criteria. I know that perhaps other articles that are in the same category as this article that are featured and don't have a plot, however, I'm discussing this article. It's quite important because The Office is a series so each episode follows on from its preceding episode. I don't feel this can pass without a plot section; the article is a list regardless of how much prose (or non-list content) is featured in the article. Spebi 05:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is plot in the lead, and in the list. I truly don't want to get the plot too exceedingly deep, and the individual episodes could be used for any bit of meaningful plot. Mastrchf91 (t/c) 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ran AWB on it. You'd missed one, I think, and it fixed up some other stuff. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, the formation of the page looks familiar… Anyway, I have not had a chance to read the page yet, but I will. Glancing over it, I see some style and typographical errors. But good job revamping the WikiProject and doing this page. I suggest that the title be changed to The Office (U.S. season 3) because it looks awkward right now. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Page has been moved to The Office (U.S. season 3). -Mastrchf91- 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lead says that there are twenty-four episodes. The episode list only lists twenty-three episodes, unless you count the hour-long episodes as two each, in which case there are twenty-five. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I cleared that up. I was using my handy-dandy Office DVD set, where through the combined episode, there are 22 episodes listed, and thinking of the 2 hour long, I put it at 24, not realizing that the list still had them separated. So, I've gone ahead and listed it at 23, as to correspond with the list. Mastrchf91 (t/c) 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Changed to improvisational Mastrchf91 (t/c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Mastrchf91 (t/c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Other nominations include " - included? The rest of that section is past tense.
 Done Mastrchf91 (t/c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got that dead link. Mastrchf91 (t/c) 15:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusion There's one thing that I've noticed that may not be of importance, but could be added. On the DVD, the episode entitled "Branch Closing" is the directors cut. I don't know if this is important enough to be mentioned, but it is a big longer than the other episodes as far as the DVD is concerned, which is probably the most likely medium it is watched on.User:SephirothSafer
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/The_Office_(U.S._season_3)&oldid=1126722269"