Talk:Company Picnic/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, moving on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria
( c )  14:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Meets the criteria after some minor copy edits. The prose could do with serious improvement however. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * ref #6 is dead, I could not find it at the Internet Archive; likewise ref #27  and ref #33 . ✅ Use of this tools shows a number of news links which are due to expire or which change domain.  These need to be fixed. I've fixed that, I realised two were simply redirects to a British version of the site so tehse can be ignored. ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * ref #2 {http://www.officetally.com/company-picnic-qa-with-jen-celotta], #14 and #36  are to a fansite and not RS.Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I think ref#2 is ok.  I would like to see it introduced at first use with a phrase such as Office producer Jen Collata in an interview with OfficeTally said:; I fixed the link for ref #7  to go to the second page of the artcile where the comment about the ehat is.  This should be cited as Jennie Tan [if that is her name] of fansite OfficeTally stated taht the temperature was.... - because it is just her saying that; ref #14 c  is more problematic. Where does it say that When Andy asks if a man wearing sunglasses is blind, he angrily replies that they are expensive Ray-Bans, a reference to the Bausch & Lomb sunglasses developer. Looks a little like OR to me. Again the source should be identified in the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, a number of referencing issues to be fixed. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, everything looks good now. I am happy to pass this as a good artcile. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed the other refs, but I'm not sure which of the links from that tool are problematic and which ones aren't. Can you give me more direction? Also, as far as OfficeTally, that is a fansite but I would argue it is an acceptable source. It's been used in several Office GA articles, like New Boss and Two Weeks. OfficeTally is not only an extremely respected and professional fansite, but one that has captured the attention of The Office writers and staff. As you can see from this article, she was invited to the set of "Company Picnic", and has also held Q&As with writers and stars of other episodes (like the two aforementioned GAs). Especially because of this, she has better and more reliable and direct information about The Office than most printed sources, so I think even if it falls in the fringes of the RS criteria, we should go ahead and allow it anyway, because the article would be far worse off without it. Let me know what you think... —  Hunter  Kahn
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, a number of referencing issues to be fixed. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, everything looks good now. I am happy to pass this as a good artcile. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed the other refs, but I'm not sure which of the links from that tool are problematic and which ones aren't. Can you give me more direction? Also, as far as OfficeTally, that is a fansite but I would argue it is an acceptable source. It's been used in several Office GA articles, like New Boss and Two Weeks. OfficeTally is not only an extremely respected and professional fansite, but one that has captured the attention of The Office writers and staff. As you can see from this article, she was invited to the set of "Company Picnic", and has also held Q&As with writers and stars of other episodes (like the two aforementioned GAs). Especially because of this, she has better and more reliable and direct information about The Office than most printed sources, so I think even if it falls in the fringes of the RS criteria, we should go ahead and allow it anyway, because the article would be far worse off without it. Let me know what you think... —  Hunter  Kahn
 * OK, a number of referencing issues to be fixed. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, everything looks good now. I am happy to pass this as a good artcile. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed the other refs, but I'm not sure which of the links from that tool are problematic and which ones aren't. Can you give me more direction? Also, as far as OfficeTally, that is a fansite but I would argue it is an acceptable source. It's been used in several Office GA articles, like New Boss and Two Weeks. OfficeTally is not only an extremely respected and professional fansite, but one that has captured the attention of The Office writers and staff. As you can see from this article, she was invited to the set of "Company Picnic", and has also held Q&As with writers and stars of other episodes (like the two aforementioned GAs). Especially because of this, she has better and more reliable and direct information about The Office than most printed sources, so I think even if it falls in the fringes of the RS criteria, we should go ahead and allow it anyway, because the article would be far worse off without it. Let me know what you think... —  Hunter  Kahn
 * I think I've fixed the other refs, but I'm not sure which of the links from that tool are problematic and which ones aren't. Can you give me more direction? Also, as far as OfficeTally, that is a fansite but I would argue it is an acceptable source. It's been used in several Office GA articles, like New Boss and Two Weeks. OfficeTally is not only an extremely respected and professional fansite, but one that has captured the attention of The Office writers and staff. As you can see from this article, she was invited to the set of "Company Picnic", and has also held Q&As with writers and stars of other episodes (like the two aforementioned GAs). Especially because of this, she has better and more reliable and direct information about The Office than most printed sources, so I think even if it falls in the fringes of the RS criteria, we should go ahead and allow it anyway, because the article would be far worse off without it. Let me know what you think... —  Hunter  Kahn
 * Please see my comments above. I have often seen this before about fansites - you may well be right about the respect, but we have no evidence of editorial oversight or independence from the subject - indeed the close realtionship with the producers moves this towards WP:SPS. As long as it is clear to the reader that this is information from a fansite editor then it could be acceptable. If you were to take this to WP:FAC it would be thrown out straight away. the whole bit about the sunglasses and the other fancruft is not neccessary in an encyclopaedia article.  The interview with the producer is a different matter. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working with me on this. I think I've responded to your comments, but please let me know if you feel more needs to be done. As you'll see, I've removed the sunglasses bit altogether, as well as a bit about the temperature (which I don't think you specifically said had to be removed, but in looking it over I thought it warranted being cut). Let me know any other concerns! —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)