Talk:Special Project

Special Project 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.

Special Project 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
Date	Process	Result
June 13, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
November 7, 2012	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.

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 writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Who writes these? This episode was terrible. I have a feeling a writer/director from The Office is doing these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you're right. It's OBVIOUSLY some inside conspiracy. The fact that all the reviews are relatively positive is easily a red herring. Not.--76.246.176.32 (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, these episodes aren't funny and according to the viewership for this season there's a steady drop off. Everywhere else I read The Office episodes are usually panned but on wiki it's usually pretty positive. Could be an inside job. -Qbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.215.196 (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every article I've ever read has given this season an B or a C, 3-3.5 out of 5 stars, etc. That's hardly "panning" a series. Panning is when you award an episode two stars, or give it a D, neither of which has happened to this series. I believe this is reflected in the articles, which HAVE passed peer-review, so its hardly an inside job. Most of the negative press has come from reviews that criticize the show for stooping to mediocrity when it was once a ground-breaking comedy. If you're unhappy, edit the article and stop proposing a conspiracy theory.--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy's Phone Conversation[edit]

Someone keeps editing the article to imply that Kathy was referring to Jim and Pam's marriage when she said "Marriage is not good. Nobody knows better than me." Not only would this be reading into something that wasn't said. It doesn't make sense in two other ways. First, how would she know better than anyone else the quality of Jim and Pam's marriage? Second, we know from a deleted scene that Kathy was going to be married to someone named Doug, but for some reason, chose not to go through with it. It seems very clear to me that when she says "Marriage is not good," she is referring to her personal views based on her (failed) experiences with marriage. Does anyone disagree with my understanding of what Kathy said? Lifesaglitch (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every review I've read interpreted the phone call to mean that Kathy was talking about Pam and Jim.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Special Project/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 18:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The episode was written by Amelie Gillette and was directed by David Rogers.", replace the bolded part with It
I suggest you reword the plot in the lead and it could do with beefing up.

Plot

"Meanwhile Jim (John Krasinski) receives..." can merit it's own paragraph.
"Erin expresses frustration that Andy is still with Jessica..." on the other hand does not, merge it.

Production

"The episode introduces a six episode arc which will feature several of the office workers working on a special project for Sabre in Tallahassee, Florida", two things: first, six-episode should be hyphenated. Secondly, the tense used is confusing, as the six episodes have been aired, should it be "which featured several of the office workers..."

Reception

"The episode originally aired" → "The episode first aired"
"Not all reviews were positive." → "However, not all reviews were positive"

References

Why is TV by the Numbers a 'work' in Ref 8 and a 'publisher' on Ref 9?

On hold for seven days. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I know this isn't my GA nomination, I went ahead and fixed everything.--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Special Project. 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) 00:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Special Project. 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) 02:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]