Talk:Customer Loyalty (The Office)

Customer Loyalty (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.

Customer Loyalty (The Office) is part of the The Office (American season 9) 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
Date	Process	Result
January 30, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
August 22, 2013	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Television: Episode coverage / The Office Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by The Office task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this one. Review forthcoming tomorrow or the day after. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial readthrough

Overall this looks good. It appears to be well-sourced, complete in coverage, and neutral in tone. My main concerns are with clearing up a few sentences and giving sufficient context for non-viewers of the show.

"accidentally outs" -- rather informal; also, it implies that they're gay. Some more context would definitely be helpful here.
"are hitting it off" -- rewrite idiom per WP:WTA
"Andy recommended her" -- Nellie or Erin?
"Shareholder Meeting" featuring "Recyclops" -- what does this mean? Is Recyclops the name of another episode?
"largely positive review" -- occurs two sentences in a row, consider tweaking to avoid the repetition.
"showed the stakes behind its characters’ […] in a way it hasn’t since Michael Scott left Scranton." -- this quotation doesn't work grammatically with that apostrophe still in place. Why not just give the full quotation? It's only two words more.
"but noted that Krasinksi" -- why "but" here? This doesn't seem to contradict the previous part of the sentence. Also, consider rephrasing "noted" per WP:WTA.
"cold opening" -- this phrase comes up several times. Isn't properly "cold open"?
Context should be given for the fact that the show is a fake documentary, to explain to readers unfamiliar with it what's going on with Brian.
" revealed that this episode would begin to reveal " -- fix repetition of "reveal" -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good; spot checks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Thank you for the review. I believe I have addressed all the concerns.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-RS

The Showbiz411 ref should be deleted, as Showbiz411 is not an RS, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED and WP:SELFPUB. --2603:7000:2143:8500:95D3:5A5F:D9B5:5BA4 (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]