The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 09:21, 25 August 2008 [1].

---

The Office (U.S. TV series) season 4[edit]

The first nomination for this article. I believe it meets the criteria, and although this contains a good deal of prose, the first, second, and third seasons are all FL, so I decided to keep the consistency and nom it here. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 20:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "in Region 1" ... "format"? Or do you mean in all the countries in Region 1? Minor point but clarification would be useful.
    • Fixed.
  • " The show is based upon the British series created by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, who are executive producers on the show" starts and ends "the show" which reads poorly and you probably should emphasise that Gervais and Merchant are exec producers on the US show.
    • Clarified.
  • "who is both a member of the WGA as well as an actor on the show" we know he's an actor on the show, that's been mentioned (and he's been linked) in the previous para.
    • Fixed.
  • Couple of clunky short sentences there which need to be improved, around how long the strike was on and when it ended.
    • Fixed.
  • "sad eyed" looks like it could use a hyphen.
    • Added.
  • Writers strike is overlinked (I think it's linked at least three times...)
  • Removed one.
  • ‡ explanation could be before the table, like the explanation of the series #.
    • I'm going to leave this one where it is unless it's deemed to be a significant point.
      • Just seems odd to split the explanation of parts of the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, you're broken me then. It's been changed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 21:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for overlinked writers and directors (e.g. Greg Daniels in the first episode)
    • Cleaned it up.
  • What happened to production codes 4001, 4003 etc?
    • I have no idea, I'm just going by the official Office website. I can't really find anything on them, my best guess would be that they were designated for ideas such as the Christmas episode that ultimately never came to fruition.
  • Not convinced pizza needs to be linked!
    • But clicking on it produces such a delicious picture!
  • "and Dwight isn't," avoid contractions.
    • Fixed.
  • Probably better to link HR than golf course.
    • Got it.
  • New York Times references could use a date.
    • Added.
  • What makes Office Tally a WP:RS?
    • Its source is a site which receives information directly from the Nielsen ratings service.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've either made the changes requested or stated why the change wasn't made on each. Thanks for your review. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 21:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The season consisted of 14 episodes." past tense.. the season doesn't exist any more?
  • Fixed.
• "in which both writers and actors from The Office went on strike" -- The actors weren't on strike. They just couldn't work because they had no scripts.
  • No, many of the actors as well as the writers were on strike. This is explained in more detail shortly after that.
    • But only because they are also members of the WGA, otherwise they wouldn't have been on strike. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The second season of the show was produced" This is the fourth season
  • Fixed.
• That entire paragraph seems suspicious to me. It mentions that Gervais and Merchant were writers, but they weren't. That's the only thing that screams out at me because I know it's not true, so it appears the paragraph was copy/pasted from the second season article.
  • Both are designated as writers on the show.....as is Jason Kessler, even though each didn't write episodes for this season.
    • Well that reference ([6]) is dated 2006, so it certainly doesn't reference them being writers for this season. I'm also unsure that the site itself is a WP:RS, even if they are just posting press releases. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Originally, NBC ordered a full season[11] consisting of 30 half-hour segments," no need for the word "consisting", and the reference should be placed after the comma.
  • Fixed.
• EDT in the lead, but Eastern Standard Time in the main section. No need to wikilink the second occurrence either
  • Going to leave this here. First is referenced by an EDT, while the later is referenced as the entire title.
    • OK, but the first time, it is the acronym, the second time it is written out in full. It should be the other way around. And both link to the same page, Eastern Time Zone: WP:OVERLINK Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Filming of The Office immediately halted on that date, as Steve Carell, who is both a member of the WGA, refused to cross WGA picket lines." Both the WGA and what?
  • Fixed.
• Does the first episode have only the production code 4002, or is it 4001 and 4002, considering it is made of two 30 minute produced segments?
  • Each contains only the single production code.

Ues the field Rtitle= in ((episode list)) for the ‡. Then it won't appear in the quotes and appear as if it is part of the title.

• • Fixed.
• Wikilink fields in references. "TV Shows On DVD" --> "TVShowsOnDVD.com"
  • Fixed.
• Because some of the page uses paragraphs from season 2, some of the references, such as #9, are no good here.
  • Fixed.
• Sorry, but OfficeTally.com isn't a reliable source as it is a blog. Source the viewing figures straight from the horse's mouth if necessary, or use ABC's thingy that many other FLs and episodic FAs use.
  • I really don't see the problem here. Yes, it is a blog. But regardless of that, just being a blog doesn't simply kick it out of contention for being a reliable source. As long as it has a set source of fact-checking, as is readily apparent here, it's fine to use.

I really think this is one of those lists that should have been Peer Reviewed before bringing here. FLC isn't a substitution. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you didn't mean that to come off as it did. But, in the event you did, it's pretty apparent that this venue isn't to be used as a peer review....Anyway, I've commented on most of these things, and a few I'll leave for sometime later. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 02:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these have been dealt with. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.officetally.com/
    • Each instance of use of this source uses reliable fact checking.
  • http://www.celebrityspider.com/
    • These show reliable fact-checking, as they show their source, mostly NBC Press releases.
  • http://www.tvsquad.com/
    • I'm in the midst of finding a more reliable source here. Found one.
• See also sections usually go before the references.
  • Fixed.
• The New York Times should be The New York Times (if you're using ((cite newspaper)), I think using the work field for the name of the paper will fix that)
  • Fixed this.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All requests have been dealt with. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 17:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.