Talk:Money (The Office)/GA1

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


 * Lead
 * I think the lead needs a bit of a re-write. The first four sentences are all very short, and the last three all start "It ..." with it referring to the first words of the first sentence. At the moment it's a very dry opening. It needs livening up. I'd also suggest removing the brackets - if it's important enough to mention, particularly in the lead, it's important enough to mention without brackets.
 * "condominium" Either this needs wikilinking or explaining - I'm not sure it's a very common term.
 * "In the episode, Jan, now living with Michael in his condominium, forces costly changes in Michael's life, he worries about his financial situation." This sentence doesn't make sense - it has two main verbs without any conjunction.
 * "Bed and Breakfast" I think this should be lower case letters


 * Plot
 * Are there wikilinks for "beet" and "wine-making"?
 * "Jim is quietly pleased when Dwight returns to his desk, his annoying and overbearing personality having returned." I think the second phrase needs a qualifying word to introduce it. At the moment it's two sentences which don't have an obvious link. It might be a simple "because ..." but I'm not sure at the moment.
 * "Jan speeds to the office and Oscar tells her which direction Michael ran in, she runs to the train yard." Another sentence with two main verbs but no conjunction. Possibly change "and Oscar" to "and, after Oscar ..., she runs ..."


 * Reception
 * "The show recieved some good reviews from critics." The word some makes this sentence very vague, it could suggest it got a lot of bad reviews, or on the whole good reviews. I think it's needs further clarification or rewording.

There's quite a bit to work on, but apart from the start of the lead, it's quite good, so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

*The reception still says "some". It looks very vague. Peanut4 (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Updated points
 * The start to the lead is still very dry and contains the brackets. I'd try amalgamate it into two sentences, and please drop the brackets.
 * Striking out my own comment. The reception section on second thoughts looks okay. Just tidy up the lead, and we should be there. Peanut4 (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Final review
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I've made some minor changes to the lead. Remember the lead is the article's shop window, and should sum up the article and act as a catch to potential readers. I'll pass the entry, but if you have any more questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)