Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes/archive1

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 not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 03:41, 4 September 2008 [1].

List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes[edit]

I think this fulfills the FL requirements. Nergaal (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk)

Gary King (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First batch of comments resolved. Nergaal (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is inconsistency in italicizing the references; only publications should be italicized, so not BBC News, for instance.
  • What makes the following reliable:
amazon would be better? everything on this topic seems to be blogs, or pages that will surely change with other topics (i.e. the official site) Nergaal (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think Amazon is okay but some have mentioned that it is not reliable, akin to IMDB. Gary King (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, I thought the same but.. Nergaal (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the subarticle on season 2 gives the reference http://www.celebrityspider.com/news/january06/article012206-6.html Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That website looks even less reliable. Gary King (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could remove the date links but I am not sure how would that work. Could I remove the year link at least if the year is repeating? Nergaal (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "t of Committed,[13]. Season" extra comma there?
  • the article needs a thorough copyedit; for instance,
  • "Season one introduced each of the main characters" – "Season one introduced the main characters"
  • "The office gets a new employee in temporary worker Ryan Howard (B.J. Novak)." – "in" probably not the best preposition
  • "on July 10th. The" – format date
  • "NBC ordered " – unlink the NBC; lots of NBC links throughout already
  • "e 2008-2009 television seaso" – endash needed here
  • "premiere Thursday, September 25 and the first episode is likely to be titled "Weight Loss" or "Summer."[22]" – why is "Thursday" there? At least unlink it; I assume most people know what Thursday is

Gary King (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I know this sounds odd, but what is Region 1, 2, 3, 4??? Should I link them since I assume ppl outside US don't understand them. Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Yes I think they should be linked. Gary King (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But to what? Nergaal (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably link only one of them (the first mention) to DVD region code. Gary King (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be ok now.Nergaal (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "British] series"
  • either link the month/day/year combinations, meaning month/day is linked together and the year (this is for user formatted date preferences), or don't link dates at all
  • disambiguation links: Roy Anderson, Writers Guild of America
do you have a tool to find these or you do it manually? Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The office gets a new employee" – "The office gets new employee"
  • The overviews of all of the season sections need references

Gary King (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to add refs to each section. How's now? Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following information and/or paragraphs still require references:
  • "Season two featured the first"
  • "In November 2007 the Webisodes"
  • "NBC ordered a full fourth season of"
  • "Technology was another theme as the office staff struggled with initiatives introduced by Ryan to modernize the company."

Gary King (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Done? Nergaal (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The new references need to be formatted correctly. Some are different formats from others; such as "Retrieved" vs. "retrieved". This causes problems, also, such as the date formatted in "Retrieved on 20080-08-23." and some of the access dates are unlinked while some are not.
  • Also, I should have been clearer – the text I mentioned above meant that that information to the very end of the paragraph need citations. So the following are still unreferenced:
    • "It further developed into the plot of the fear of company downsizing, along with developing the minor characters in the series."
    • "In the end, due to the shutdown, the fourth season of The Office actually consisted of 19 half-hour segments, ten of which were combined to form five one-hour specials."

Gary King (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Done. Nergaal (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "on DVD in Regions" is linked but I think linking the text "Regions 1, 2 and 4 " makes more sense
  • There are three Zap2It links that are dead (and have been since April)
check them manually Nergaal (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But he is one of the directors of the show... isn't that reliable enough? Nergaal (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
added for dates Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please copyedit the entire article. I was just randomly scrolling through and found a few issues:
  • "But later in the day, it pays off" – "However, later in the day, it pays off" or even "Later in the day, however, it pays off"
  • "But the group's fun quickly turns sour," – same as above
  • there are more sentences that start with "But"; same solution as above please
  • "When Michael burns his foot while at his own home, he requests that one of the employees of the office come to his house to pick him up. An enthusiastic Dwight volunteers, but in his rush, he crashes his own car before he is even able to get out of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton parking lot, suffering a concussion. But the concussion brings out a good-natured Dwight, who is kind and helpful to the other members of the office. Eventually, Jim drives both Michael and Dwight to the hospital, where they are both helped with their respective injuries. " – can be written better. Something like "When Michael burns his foot at home, he asks for one of his employees to pick him up. An enthusiastic Dwight volunteers, but in his rush, he crashes his car before he gets out of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton parking lot. Following the accident, he suffers a concussion which brings out a good-natured Dwight who is kind and helpful to his co-workers. Later, Jim drives both Michael and Dwight to the hospital, where they are helped with their injuries."
  • I'll check back in a little while for an update on how the other episode summaries are doing.
  • The plot summaries for the "Season 1: 2005" section should be expanded; they are significantly shorter than the other summaries, and yet those episodes still have quite a bit of content like the later episodes

Gary King (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now? Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still not ready.
  • "Albeit unintentionally, Michael outs Oscar's homosexuality." can be done as "Michael outs Oscar's homosexuality unintentionally." to be more straightforward.
  • "Jim tries to adjust to his new life with his new co-workers" – "Jim tries to adjust to a new life with new co-workers" – as we can safely assume that it's his life that he's adjusting for.
  • The season 1 episode plots should still be expanded further.
  • simple things need to be fixed, like this: "doesn't " – contractions should be expanded, so this should be "does not"

Gary King (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? #41308789025 Nergaal (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, still not ready. FLC is not a peer review; WP:PR exists for this purpose. Just give you an example of how stringent FLC has become, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Office (U.S. TV series) season 4/archive1 just recently failed its FLC because of no supports (primarily due to copyediting issues). "harassment suit, leading" – "harassment lawsuit, leading", "an easy-going office" – "an easygoing office", etc. Gary King (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the entire plot summaries, and tweaked the text. It should look much better now. Nergaal (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MOS issues and such still linger. "1 A.M. " – "1 a.m. " per WP:MOS, for example. Gary King (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for spotting that, but could you be a bit more precise? Nergaal (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues like the dozens that I brought up above still exist. FLC isn't meant to be a peer review; please fix the remaining issues and then I will give my support. Gary King (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I've went again in detail and switched some of the refs and improved the text. what is still missing? Nergaal (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a quick look. How is this reliable? Gary King (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to wonder weather you even checked what was it referencing and just say that the text was altered to not need it. Nergaal (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that this is a forum post and is not considered reliable, either. Gary King (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I added a new one and altered the text accordingly. The only publisher left that has a any chance to be considered unreliable is zap2it, but it looks ok and it does not try to refference dubious facts. Nergaal (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when this cropped up, but year ranges such as "2005-2006" must use an en dash per WP:DASH. Also, perhaps merge the second and third paragraphs of the lead (in a logical manner) as they are both pretty short. The Zap2It references are also formatted incorrectly; date goes after publisher I believe. Also, in the references, authors must be last name, first name format. Gary King (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think {{citeweb}} puts the date after author-but in this case there is none. I could move them after the publisher if you really think that is the way they should be. As for the last, first, I am quite sure that there is no strict preference, except that it must me either one of the other throughout the entire article - again, I could switch them if you really think it should be the case. Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest just using cite web for the two Zap2It references just so there is no confusion; also, there should be a space after the date and before the title, and no leading zeroes for the days in the dates, anyways. The last name, first name is mandatory, not optional, as far as I know since I've been at FAC and FLC. Gary King (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as I've allready stated below, the use of cite web in this case is not possible since the url of zap adresses contains the character "
  • Still are issues like the above.

Gary King (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that points 1&3 are ok in some countries/areas even in the literary English–although I might be wrong. Anyways, I solved them. As for #4, I really do not believe it needs a ref (it is a relatively minor plot detail that can be verified by watching the episode). Nergaal (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking because it might as well be specified as it shouldn't be hard to find, not because it needs a ref; which it would as a side-effect, anyways. Gary King (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why isn't this link ok? http://www.tv <delete this space> rage.com/person/id-48829/?show_all_gcredits=1#ecast_6061
also, I went through the text again... Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link is blacklisted; it was probably spammed on several articles before. Gary King (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so it is basically worse than unreliable? Nergaal (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically Gary King (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←how is http://www.hollywood.com/celebrity/Rashida_Jones/186511? also, is there any point to continuing with this? I've put a humongous amount of time into this and it seems that little has changed. should I just give up on this article? Nergaal (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it is not considered reliable. Gary King (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is what 1 user thinks, and the obvious counter-question is: what makes it unreliable such that it cannot be used to list the appearances of a certain character? Also, you still did not answer wather there is any point in continuing with this FLC. Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The primary issue is that it is unclear how the information at that URL is obtained. Also, I think I suggested at the beginning of my review that this be withdrawn so that it can be worked on before re-submitting it to FLC; if I had not mentioned this, that I will mention it now. It gives everyone more time to work on the article and it does not cause a strain on the already stretched reviewers at FLC; I'm the only person that has gotten to this FLC so far (besides Ealdgyth, who checked the URLs), so there might be other issues that others bring up that I missed. Gary King (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to hollywood.com, and a similar link on one of my FAC submissions, User:Ealdgyth at WP:Featured article candidates/Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation) said "Given the information being sourced to it, I can deal with this. However, I would be much more worried about using it for contentious information." TVShowsonDVD.com is owned by TV Guide and is considered reliable. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link shows the appearances of the character, and as a result it shows that it has been disappeared from most of the episodes. I do not think this is contentious. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It is only meant to say that there are x episodes, of which y are 1h long. Nergaal (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. On this site, perhaps you could find something like TV Guide for the information? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 28 is lacking a publisher.
  • I'd try to replace the IMDb reference with something a bit less likely to get challenged.
  • The zaptoit refs are showing up as deadlinks in the link checker tool.
Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Zap2it links are NOT dead. The problem is that they contain the "|" character, and since I've used citeweb, the template reads it as the end of the url. Any ways around that? Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urf. No clue. Do they work from the article itself? If they do, then don't worry about it. If they don't work, I have no idea.. you might have to format the refs by hand. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't work, consider replacing the "|"s with an ndash or colon? I'll take a look at the page tomorrow. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Don't start with "This is a list of..."
rephrased entire intro
removed; but no images?
  • "The program" --> "The series"
  • The Office (U.S. TV series) is linked to on the second use of The Office, not the first
  • "and a full-length second and third season in 2005–2006, respectively in 2006–2007." doesn't make sense
  • "two sets of webisodes." -- Is "sets" the right word? Perhaps "seasons"?
  • Many Featured episode Lists where the series also have season pages do not include episode summaries, and instead leave them for the season pages.
  • All the Featured episode lists where the series also have season pages transclude the episode tables from the season pages. This allows for easy updating because when the season page is updated, the main list is updated automatically.
  • UK, not U.K., and because of that, US, not U.S.
You suggest moving the page? Nergaal (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to oppose at the moment because it's just not up to current episode list standards. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YESSS, somebody actually bothered to write specific complains and not just a random pick. I will try to fix these issues within the next few days. Nergaal (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased most of the intro, and I think I dealt with all the complains listed. Any other problems? Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my "specific complains [sic]" are under the "Resolved comments from Gary King (talk)" banner up top? Gary King (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I believe I solved all of them. It is possible to have skipped a very few but I kind of doubt that. Nergaal (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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/List_of_The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)_episodes/archive1&oldid=1126721402"