Talk:Goodbye, Michael

Seriousness of the draft script

Can we not discard the rumors about the draft script? Every regular watcher of 'The Office' who has read the script, I guess, can be sure to say that it's not legit. According to IMDB, there is no crafts services coordinator called Jason Brandonman. It could however be an elaborate marketing gag, I give you that. Off-the-air (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been a regular watcher of the show since the very beginning and I'm 100% sure that this is a total fake. Not only is it only 35 pages for an hour-long episode, but there are no credited writers on the title page, the director's name given is incorrect and the characters are very off. If this were legitimately written by one of the Office staff writers these mistakes would not be here. Since the script for the "Dinner Party" episode was released with the fourth season DVD it wouldn't be hard for someone to get a feel for what the formatting of their scripts would be. I have no idea why anyone would think this a noteworthy addition to a Wikipedia article, it is baseless, unfounded gossip and nothing more. I recommend that we get rid of any mention of this fake script and keep the page semi-protected, at least for a while, so that unregistered editors will not be able to re-add the information. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the script. The Salon article just mentions it as something that's likely not real, so it's certainly not "widely believed" to be a legitimate script as this article suggests. ... discospinster _talk 20:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I was actually about to request that this be done, when I noticed it was already gone. Though the script had some very funny parts, there's no way a sitcom is going to deal with a one-armed character for the remainder of it's run. Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

And why exactly is it back now? I don't get it... Off-the-air (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Because anonymous users keep adding it back. They're the only ones who seem to want it on here. While experienced editors know it doesn't belong here. None of the anonymous users have participated in the discussion, which is why the page should simply be semi-protected so we don't have to deal with this nonsense. —Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Let's get this page semi-protected already so we can put an end to this bulls**t. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed again from the lead. However, it could be said that it is notable enough for a mention. So I have placed it at the bottom of the article and cited it with the only reliable source used, Salon.com, which clearly believes it to be bogus. I've removed all the rest of the nonsense; like the weaselly "is believed" and the laughably leading statement "yet to be officially authenticated". I think this may be a better way to handle this, rather than removing it. Anyone with any other good, reliably sourced, cites that can put it firmly in its place? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much still think we shouldn't have this on here at all, I just don't think it's notable. But there is a large amount of disagreement, so I'm willing to concede that if this has to be on here then Escape Orbit's solution is as good a compromise as we'll get. If there is any other word from reliable sources then it should be added. Hopefully this will be the end of it. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Guy546^(Talk) 19:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• I'm not sure what makes this a reliable source, as it seems to be a fansite and only has a general summary of the article and not the entire plot of the article that it is referenced to.
  • Now satisfactory.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail:

Just needs one tiny reference fixed then it is ready to be a GA. Guy546^(Talk) 20:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is now ready NoD'ohnuts (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Guy546^(Talk) 02:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Goodbye, Michael. 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/20120223152459/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/19/2012-writers-guild-awards-winners-announced-modern-family-breaking-bad-homeland-more/120757/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/19/2012-writers-guild-awards-winners-announced-modern-family-breaking-bad-homeland-more/120757/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-7/42801/goodbye-michael-scott/episode-722/311924/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 21:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)