Talk:Branch Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Branch Wars has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 9, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is maintained by WikiProject The Office (US), which is building a comprehensive, informative, and interesting guide about the TV show The Office, on Wikipedia. Please, edit this article to improve it! All are welcome to join our project and we invite you to do so! For general discussion on this topic, feel free to go to the Water Cooler.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
Comedy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] My GA Review of this article

I quick-failed this GAN because the Lead and Production sections (not necessary in Plot section per WP:Television episodes) are not supported by any reliable sources. --Eustress (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My (Second) GA Review of this article

A good article has the following attributes:

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • I fixed any remaining issues I had with the article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
         (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
         (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;[2] and
         (c) contains no original research.
  • Good
  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
         (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
  • Good
  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  • Good
  5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  • No prior issues
  6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
         (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]
  • One image in good standing

[edit] Conclusion

I will pass the article to GA status...congrats! --Eustress (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

awesome! :) Enigma message 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)