Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Office (US TV series)

The Office (US TV series)

Self-nomination I have to admit that I was inspired to up the quality of this article based on the recent FAs The West Wing (TV series) and Arrested Development. I think you'll find the article adequately lengthy, VERY researched, and hopefully well-written. ;) Comments? Williamnilly 01:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• you need fair use rationale for the pictures (i learned that the hard way, see below). Vulcanstar6 01:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info! Done! Williamnilly 02:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Williamnilly, you are obsessed. I think I had at least 5 edit conflicts with you in a row. Mrtea (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, you're probably right, sorry. :) I'm reminded of Marty Feldman in Young Frankenstein: "Why don't you get out of there and give someone else a chance?" But seriously, I think I'm starting to see words on magazine pages with little brackets around them that aren't really there. ;) Williamnilly 02:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think the section Critical reviews, which currently simply qoutes three reviews, should either be moved to Wikiquote or rewritten. Also, several sections seem very short (Online and DVD releases and its two subsections) and many of the tables are unnecessary (the Characters table, the DVD table, etc. See When tables are inappropriate). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • We'll figure out an alternative to the (simple) tables. FA Arrested Development has five critical reviews, so would you figure that's just enough? Williamnilly 15:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer a paragraph summarizing how the series was generally reviewed over simply quoting some reviews. For quotes, there's Wikiquote. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Operation Table Replacement and Critical Review Restructure done! Williamnilly 18:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support. I like this article, but there are a few things I would comment on. (1) I'm not a big fan of trivia sections, usefull information should be elsewhere in the article, trivial information should be omitted. Also there are a few redundant references which would be combined into one using the <ref name> tage. --Fallout boy 21:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, a lot of the original trivia (it was a big list) was actually moved into the article before the nom (as I know there are people like yourself who aren't big trivia section fans). The only pieces left are random bits that would really be difficult to "blend" into the article (but I would argue are still interesting). Also, I will point to the FA Arrested Development page, which includes trivia, just to be a brat. :) Williamnilly 18:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I should mention that much of the trivia has been discussed and removed since Fallout boy's note. Mrtea (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• I give my full support then.--Fallout boy
• Comment:

"Rainn Wilson blogs on NBC.com every so often, but he does it in character as Dwight Schrute." Is the Schrute blog actually written by Rainn Wilson?

• I remember having a problem with that wording when it was first in the External links section. I've fixed up the current revision as we don't know who actually writes the blog. Mrtea (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, USA Today reported in a recent article that he does, in fact, update the blog himself. AND, after doing some more research, he did state it when he was on The Tonight Show on March 14: "But I use the time on the set. We actually have working Internet and I use a lot of the time to blog as my character of Dwight Schrute for NBC.com." So, I'll just reinstate the line and cite the more reliable source. :) Williamnilly 21:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops my bad, sorry :) Thanks for the update. Mrtea (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"In the opening scene, Jim is highlighting a California Municipal code form of Sec 12.22.C which pertains to the height of fences in front yards.[citation needed]" Yes, Citation Needed. Also, does "opening scene" refer to the opening sequence or the first scene of the first episode? Andrew Levine 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I removed that piece of trivia. Even if we were to verify it... it's not that interesting. Mrtea (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The series was originally unsuccessful in Australia (it was cancelled after only one week), it returned to a late night timeslot in early 2006. -- That would be a big understatement and quite pov, if I recall, the show was hugely advertised and then pulled after one episode, saying it was originally unsuccessful is implying that it became successful...Cvene64 09:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I reworded it and just stated the facts. Williamnilly 15:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Good stuff Cvene64 08:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I'm especially impressed by the number of quotes from people involved with production and how well they're integrated with the prose. Andrew Levine 02:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Although there's no FA rule against it, isn't it much too early to promote a series which has only been on two years to FA status, considering that it's still a "current event" (i.e., still on the air). I made a similar comment during the recent Lost FAC nomination -- it's simply too soon and the article could thereotically change week after week after week. This isn't a comment one way or another on the article's writing, just a comment in that I think it is premature to consider. --Ataricodfish 04:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, the article rocks, period. Great screenshots and pages from all the episodes with a great flow to it. A great article for a funny show. Weatherman90 15:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support - I don't much care for the short sections near the end or the trivia section, but otherwise looks like a solid article that merits FA status. --mav 16:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Comment: The Office is an US TV series? What is an US? Do you mean to say a U.S. TV series? If this is the case, the title needs to be wikified. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it seems to be fairly common on Wikipedia... [1] 64.229.74.41 16:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• The title is wikified... See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). :) Mrtea (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. As one of the more active contributors to this article, I didn't want to put forth my vote until I was sure this definitely hit FA criteria. I'm confident it does, and all concerns above have been responded to. Mrtea (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Great read, nice flow, interesting information. What else do you need? HeyNow10029 22:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)