Talk:Moving On (The Office)

Moving On (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.

Moving On (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
February 22, 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
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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article will be on hold for 7 days. Please see the comment section below.--Dom497 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"...but her potential manager (Odenkirk) ...", - Is Odenkirk the actor's real name? If so, is a name to the character given? If not, is the actor's name known?--Dom497 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Gabe (Woods)", and "Aunt Shirley (Gillis)", - Put full names.--Dom497 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The plan inevitably works as Gabe is still attracted to Erin and makes several uncomfortable remarks and Alice brings up Pete's immature past, prompting arguments to break out in the conference room", - Doesn't sound right with the two "and"'s. I also think replacing the first "and" with a comma still would sound off. A re-write of the sentence should do the trick.--Dom497 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Dwight, dejected, tells her that, while he still loves her, she should be faithful to her husband.", - Too many breaks/commas.--Dom497 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the "Scranton Strangler"?--Dom497 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"M. Giant of Television Without Pity..." - First name?--Dom497 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some ref's are missing the "date=" parameter.--Dom497 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only one that is missing the date is the first one, and that is because the date isn't supplied on the page.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake.--Dom497 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed or clarified all of the issues! Thanks for the review.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moving On (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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130218044242/http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-9/619674/moving-on/episode-916/708579/ to http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-9/619674/moving-on/episode-916/708579/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]