Talk:Couples Discount

Couples Discount has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Couples Discount is part of the The Office (American season 9) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 7, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
August 22, 2013	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage / The Office Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by The Office task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Couples Discount/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 00:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Initial comments

This looks strong and clearly ripe for promotion. Thanks for your work on it! Two initial questions--I'll go through the checklist a bit later tonight or tomorrow:

"Andy surprises everyone by showing up" -- why are they surprised? I thought they knew he was coming back. Is it that he gets there a day early?
"and the nail salon plot" -- what is the nail salon plot? -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
An image should be added per criterion 6, "Illustrated, if possible, by images". Images of many cast members seem readily available, but Helms might be the best choice (e.g. File:Ed_Helms_2011.jpg). -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~See a question or two above re: clarity;~~ spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	~~N/A, see note above~~
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Couples Discount. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130211004131/http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-9/619674/couples-discount/episode-915/705233 to http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-9/619674/couples-discount/episode-915/705233/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic