Talk:Nepotism (The Office)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010   talk  23:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review sometime today or tomorrow. Ruby2010  talk  23:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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:

Comments

 * Please add links to the characters' articles in the lead
 * Add how many viewers the episode had to the lead
 * In the end the backfired prank does impress Jim.[2] Why is this cited? Is it a controversial comment? (I like The Office, but haven't seen this particular episode yet).
 * Add how Daniel Chun and Jeffrey Blitz relate to the show (are they producers, writers etc?)
 * Kevin Fitzpatrick of UGO Networks was a good episode, but not an especially important one which failed to advance any ongoing story lines. Word missing.
 * Reference 19 needs production fix ("Tvbythenumbers" should be consistent among all refs).
 * The article was a pleasure to read, and I truly didn't find much wrong with it. Just edit accordingly to my suggestions above, respond back on this page, and the article will be good to go. Thanks, Ruby2010   talk  01:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'm placing the article on hold for seven days (though I'm sure it will be fixed much sooner). Thanks, Ruby2010   talk  01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All points addressed; thanks for the review. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 02:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to go. Passed for GA. Good work, Ruby2010   talk  05:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)