Talk:Initiation (The Office)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Initiation (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.
July 7, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

Dunder Mifflin[edit]

I am going through several articles and changing instances of "Dunder-Mifflin" to "Dunder Mifflin" (no hyphen) as it is the proper "spelling" of the company name (see Talk page at Dunder Mifflin). Just leaving a note to say that I've gone through this page. :) Fieryrogue 16:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Officeinitiation.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Officeinitiation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Initiation (The Office)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|}}

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    {{subst:#if:In the lead, this sentence ---> "Pam is supposed to keep track Michael's productivity", it would be best if "of" would be added after "track". In the Synopsis section, this sentence ---> "At Dunder Mifflin Stamford" that does not make sense and it would be best if it were re-written.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)|In the lead, this sentence ---> "Pam is supposed to keep track Michael's productivity", it would be best if "of" would be added after "track". In the Synopsis section, this sentence ---> "At Dunder Mifflin Stamford" that does not make sense and it would be best if it were re-written.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)|}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    {{subst:#if:In the Reception section, it would be best if "Entertainment Weekly" were italicized, per here.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)|In the Reception section, it would be best if "Entertainment Weekly" were italicized, per here.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)|}}
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    {{subst:#if:Reference 3 needs to be fixed.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)|Reference 3 needs to be fixed.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)|}}
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2bcom}}}|}}
    C. It contains no original research:
    {{subst:#if:Is TV.com a reliable source?
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)|Is TV.com a reliable source?
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)|}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3acom}}}|}}
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3bcom}}}|}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6acom}}}|}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6bcom}}}|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.|If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.|}}

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed all the problems except 2a. Unfortunatly, the spam filter won't let post the actual link. I've asked for it to be un-banned at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, but so far there has been no reply. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Whitelisting process can be a bit lengthy. I'd ask the reviewer to not fail this article due to the Whitelisting process. Mastrchf (t/c) 17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Ref 3 has been fixed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the ref. settings, Mr.crabby, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Initiation (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.

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Initiation (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.

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)