Talk:Hot Girl (The Office)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 01:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Will review soon. Ruby 2010/2013 01:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• Split plot section into 2 paragraphs (I'll let you decide at what point)
• Pam is wikilinked multiple times in plot section
• Production section: wikilink Mindy Kaling
• "Adams thoroughly enjoyed her work on the show" You should attribute this to Adams (like, Adams remarked that she thoroughly enjoyed her work on the show)
• Wikilink The Office in Advocate quote
• "The episode, airing after Scrubs, retained only 19% or its lead-in audience". I assume this is "of its lead-in audience"?
• "After the lackluster reception of the episode, many critics erroneously predicted that "Hot Girl" would also serve as the de facto series finale." You say many critics but then only provide one source
• The review section definitely needs expanding (as a rule of thumb I never have it shorter than the ratings section). I managed to track down one review, but there are probably others out there
• Refs 1, 7 and 8 need proper formatting for consistency
• Ref 4: Don't the liner notes just list the episodes for a particular DVD? Where does it say that "Hot Girl" was "the first and only episode directed by Amy Heckerling"?
• OfficeTally or OfficeTally.com?

I'll place the review on hold for seven days (though once again it'd be nice if you could make changes before the 26th). Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 03:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed everything, although I do have a few comments. For the DVD liner part, I just added it to cite that Heckerling directed the episode. I guess I could add a ref for every DVD box set to cross-reference, but that seems a little drastic. She only directed one episode, and thus I just listed the one source. Also, there aren't a lot of review out there for first season episodes of The Office. The one you posted is already in the article, but I'll look for some more.--Gen. Quon (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Did a little cleanup in Production, but the second sentence is problematic in a few ways:

• The tense—"would go on to"—is odd; better would be "has since become".
• The statement that she would eventually write 24 episodes sounds like that's a final number; this needs to be anchored with a date (perhaps "as of the end of 2011", given the IMDb reference, though IMDb, since it allows fan-entered data, is not always a reliable source). Kaling's Wikipedia article has a nice reference to an article in the New York Times (ref 10) from September, at which point she had written 22 episodes. Also, IMDb gives 157 writing credits to three writers, far more than Kaling's 24, which casts considerable doubt on the "most prolific writer" statement.
• Instead of "would eventually become executive producer of the show", why not "became an executive producer of the show in season eight"? Again, anchor it chronologically in some way. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I tightened up the Production section, removed the IMDB link, as you mentioned it is fan-submitted, and added the one from Kaling's page. Also, should I remove the "Rating" and "Reviews" sub-sections and just merge them into one large "Ratings and Reviews" section?--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd leave the sections separate; they're two different things, and wouldn't work well together. You could add a bit more to the "Reviews" sub-section. In particular, the IGN review offers a bit more, about Adams as Katy, about how the show doesn't yet quite feel fully formed, about how this episode gives more of an idea of what Michael will become. I even liked the bit about the cameras, though I am reading this article in a vacuum, not being someone who has seen the show or read any other of its episode articles. (I didn't go beyond the first page of the other review; there may be more in the remaining six, including what you've already included. Or maybe not.) You don't need to interpolate "Hot Girl" into the IGN quote you have now; it's unnecessary in general, and not quite accurate here: he's talking about the final moment, and how it's a "classic Office moment", not the episode as a whole. I'm also not entirely comfortable with the replacement of "these" with "[the main]" characters.

I did change "most prolific" to "very prolific" in Production, as I didn't see anywhere that the referenced sources said she'd written more episodes than anyone else. If I missed that bit, then by all means put it back (and let me know where it's referenced so I can try to determine how I missed it). BlueMoonset (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I will get to work on that ASAP.--Gen. Quon (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, how does it look now?--Gen. Quon (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the article looks good now. Thanks for weighing in Blue Moonset, your comments were very helpful. Passing for GA. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 17:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)