Talk:Finale (The Office)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk · contribs) 00:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article pending work. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 00:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

Plot

• This phrase: ...though Dwight thinks she is their waitress and remains oblivious, and Jim records his obliviousness. is a little awkward. I watched the episode and I think you mean that he recorded him with a video camera but it doesn't work as written. Part of it is the use of "oblivious" redundantly.
• The two reconcile after. This is a sentence fragment...after what?
• There were a few other prose issues with this section but not enough to prevent GA passage. It wouldn't hurt to clean it up a bit though, and if you have aspirations for a run at FA then it will definitely need a good grammatical scrubbing.

  I know I'm not the guy who nominated this, but I cleared up the prose issues.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Casting

• I see several Twitter references, I discuss references later in the review but I do get a little nervous about the reliability of Twitter references, even at the GA level. See WP:TWITTER for thoughts on this subject. More to come on the review. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 01:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviews

• Were there any negative reviews about the episode at all? Usually critics don't unanimously agree on things of this nature. Just want to be sure there's balance to it. If there aren't then there aren't and that's fine.

  I could only find one, so I added it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

References

• Twitter is a tricky source to nail down for reliability. As stated in the link above it can be used in certain circumstances but I think we should be judicious in its use. Of the 50 references in the article, 8 of them are from Twitter. Mostly they occur towards the beginning when discussing the writing and filming of the episdode. Since you are much closer to the subject than I am, do you feel as though the content referenced by Twitter can only be supported that way or are there print sources (magazine or online) that could help bolster the reliability of the information? More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 14:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  I removed the first Twitter reference, since it was easy to back-up with another source (in this case the episode's credits and The Futon Critic). However, other info, like the filming timetable, was released exclusively by the staff on their Twitters. While you are absolutely right that Twitter should be used carefully, these are all the actually actors and actresses from the show (all of their Twitter accounts have been verified). As such, I think they indeed qualify as reliable self-published sources. My two cents.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for the input. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Overall

• When I put the article up against the GA criteria I find that it's pretty close. The Lead is strong, MOS compliance is fine for the sections listed in the criteria, reliability of sources is a question that I'd like to get answered before determining GA, it's broad in its coverage.
• Other than the Twitter issue I'd like you to look at the "Reviews" section. I want to be sure that the article is balanced and any negative reviews of the episode are noted. This speaks to #4 in the criteria.

  I just found the People one. That's really the only negative one I could find, although some of the "positive" ones are slightly critical (like the AV Club one).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• The refs are good and the images are fine so other than these two items, I think you're in good shape. I'll hold the article pending responses to these questions. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 14:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any activity on this review other than the Twitter comments, which satisfies my referencing concerns. I'd like to wrap this up in the next week or so, I'll ping the orginal nominator and find out what availability is. I'm fine holding it longer but I just need to know if there is action that is going to be taken. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like the original nominator might not have been available, but I believe I fixed the issues that were left. How's it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• The article looks fine to me, I will pass to GA. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)