Talk:Tallahassee (The Office)

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Good articleTallahassee (The Office) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starTallahassee (The Office) is part of the The Office (American season 8) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 27, 2012Good article nomineeListed
November 7, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Comment about GA edit

Isn't it a bit soon to nominate it for GA? The episode only aired five days ago.... --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

That shouldn't have any bearing on it. If it's up to snuff, it's up to snuff.--Gen. Quon (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
But it won't have any commentary, which could provide useful info when the DVD comes out. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, when the DVD does come out, it can be added in. In my experience, it's easier and better to improve an article as well as you can, and then add other sources when they come later.--Gen. Quon (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
This is several months later, but no commentary on the DVD. :(--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 19:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I will be reviewing this article and will get started as soon as I can!--Dom497 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    Quality of the article is excellent.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
    See 'Comment' section for more information.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    Everything in this section looks good.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    All sources are reliable.
    C. No original research:  
    No original research found in the article.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    Major aspects of the episode are covered.
    B. Focused:  
    The article remains on-topic for the entire time.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
    No bias found within the article.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
    Article is stable.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    Infobox picture rationale appears to be filled out correctly. The other picture is from Flickr and license for the photo is correct.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    Images are appropriate and the captions are good.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    As of right now, I can not pass the article. Please see the 'Comment' section for what needs to be fixed. Once these issues are fixed, I will pass the article. The article will be on hold for 7 days (until May 3, 2012). If nothing is fixed by then, I will be forced to fail the article.--Dom497 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Comments edit

Lead edit

  • "According to Nielsen Media Research, "Special Project" drew 4.38 million viewers and received a 2.3 rating/6% share in the 18-49 demographic, marking a twelve percent drop in ratings from the previous episode, "Special Project",...". This statement makes no sense. You are saying that the episode "Special Project" drew 4.38 million viewers which was a 12 percent drop in ratings from the previous episode which is (according to the statement) the same episode.

Plot edit

  • "...look as if he had been murdered in order to prank Dwight, going so far as to write "It was Dwight" on the wall in faux-blood." Shouldn't this statement say something like: "...look as if he had been murdered in order to prank Dwight, going as far as to writing "It was Dwight" on the wall in faux-blood."
  • "Dwight and Erin walk in to find the room in ruins, and Jim lurches out of the closet as if he has been murdered." Writing the sentence like this sounds better: " Dwight and Erin then walk in the room only to find it in ruins. Moments later, Jim lurches out of the closet as if he has been murdered."
  • "However, he returns three hours after his appendix is removed in order to impress his new boss." Maybe the sentence should be written like this: "However, three hours later, after getting his appendix removed, he returns in order to impress his new boss."
  • "Meanwhile in Scranton, the office is left without a reception." This should be turned into this: "Meanwhile in Scranton, the office is left without a receptionist."

Production edit

  • "Tallahassee" marked the return appearance of Catherine Tate, who previously appeared in the seventh season finale, "Search Committee" as a candidate to replace Michael as office manager.[3] Tate was initially the top choice to join the cast as the manager, but due to a commitment to the West End production of the Shakespeare play, Much Ado About Nothing she was unable to join the series.[4][5]" So you are saying that Tate returned to the show but was unable to join the series at the same time. Makes no sense.
Alright, I believe I've addressed all the issues. Thank you very much for reviewing!--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
PASS!!!

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tallahassee (The Office). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tallahassee (The Office). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply