Talk:Todd Packer (The Office)

Todd Packer (The Office) 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 5, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Comedy

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Television 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.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Todd Packer (The Office)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll be glad to take this one. As last time, I'll start with a close readthrough of the article's text, noting intial issues, and follow with a checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Initial readthrough

"although Kevin pretends to go along with it" -- "it" is a pronoun without a referent here. Maybe just say, "pretends to play along" or "pretends to enjoy the jokes"?
" to be fine with" -- a bit informal. Perhaps, "a trade to which Erin seems to agree" or "a trade which does not appear to bother Erin"?
"The cold open in the episode ... " -- what was the cold open for this episode? It's not clear from the plot above, so maybe just add a phrase describing it here.
"Notable cut scenes" -- I'm removing "notable" here as a tiny bit of editorializing. Since "include" makes it clear this isn't a complete list, it's not really needed.

Since these are very minor points, I'll go straight to the checklist.

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.
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	pass

Thank you ever so much for the review! How do the changes look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks great--thanks for your super-speedy response! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Add topic