Talk:Work Bus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 09:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be your reviewer for this one. I'm going to give the article a read through now and add any points I notice below. As you've already done several Office episode related articles, I'll apologise now as I'm sure that'll mean that anything I do find will be rather annoyingly nitpicky in nature! I took the liberty of adding the WikiProject templates to the talk page, using Talk:Welcome Party as a template for checking the importance levels etc - I didn't add a quality level as I'm sure it'll be changing to GA shortly! :) Miyagawa (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead: Do you think you need to include the inline citation for Brian Cranston in the lead? You use the same citation for the same point in the production section. I'll leave it up to you as I don't see it as being a major issue, but I don't think it needs to be there.

"convinces Dwight (Rainn Wilson) that the building is unsafe, Dwight rents a bus and sets up the office inside" - is it possible to reword this slightly so that there is a connection between the two events as the first led to the second. The way its worded at the moment, that isn't clear. Perhaps changing it to "resulting in Dwight renting a bus and moving the office inside".

Plot: Could you reword it slightly to make certain that Kevin's ability to do math related to pies isn't in order to please Pam.

Before the line about Dwight climbing onto the roof, there needs to be a mention that he is convinced to drive the bus to the pie stand.

Production: Might be a nice touch to mention that Cranston had previously directed episodes of How I Met Your Mother and Modern Family if you can find suitable sources.

And as far as I can see thats everything! It's already mostly there, so once you've addressed those three points I'm happy to pass this one for a GA. Miyagawa (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, so let's run the template:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

So I'm happy to promote this one to GA status. Nice job. Miyagawa (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)