Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Office (U.S. TV series)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 19:35, 4 May 2008.

---

The Office (U.S. TV series)

Review commentary

Notified User:Jersyko‎, User:Raymondc0‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comedy‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject The Office (US)

Promoted to FA status in early 2006. Since then, the article has been inundated with a large amount of trivia that has hampered the article itself. The season synopses are particularly problematic, both ineffective and awkward in their writing styles and putting an undue amount of focus on the romantic plot arcs at the expense of describing the episodic workplace happenings on the show. Rather than effectively summarizing details about the show, the article relies too heavily on quotations, featuring literally dozens of quotations for ideas that could instead be reworded and summarized. Furthermore, the images in the article are problematic: we have one image from the actual show (featuring only two of the five main characters and taking place outside the typical office setting), two promotional images (the cast shot, which is now outdated, and the DVD cover), and four photographs taken of the city where the show takes places (but is not filmed.) This does a poor job of illustrating the topic in general. Large amounts of unsourced content, including the entire list of awards and much of the show plot synopses. Numerous dead external links and reference issues are also a problem.

It's a shame, because I really enjoy this TV series, but this article just isn't FA-status anymore, and might not even make the cut as a GA. - Chardish (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree that it hasn't maintained featured quality since it obtained FA status. I also wanted to note that while I was notified of the FAR, I really have done little editing other than vandalism reversion. I am uncertain who the primary authors were at the time it became featured. · jersyko talk 16:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are focus (4), images (3), prose (1a), and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• As the nominator, I think more depressing than the quality of this article is the fact that it's been apparently totally abandoned by experienced editors who want to bring it up to quality. Remove, I guess? I don't know what else there is to do if no one wants to improve it. - Chardish (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think this can be brought back ... User:Mastrchf91 is working on getting WikiProject:The Office back up to snuff. I took and added some free images corresponding to scenes in the opening credits last fall in Scranton I just sent him a note that maybe, if we address the concerns here, we can get this on the Main Page for April 10, when new episodes resume. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, we can hold.' But keep us informed. Marskell (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just left a note on the talk page about the issues I found going through a hard copy with a red pen (lots). I will be spending this weekend implementing the results of a copy edit. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reconsidered whether an April 10 main page date is the best, per continuing discussion on talk page. I now prefer to go for the season finale date in late May as it would give us more time to fix some of the unsourced facts. However, this does not mean I won't be continuing my efforts to preserve the FA standing. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Status. I spent enough time in there just to get some basic article organization and to see how much needs to be done. There is so much basic MoS cleanup needed that I'd rather just do it myself than have to type it all out, assuming editors are still working and aware of how much work remains to be done here; otherwise, I'm a Remove. I saw non-reliable sources while I was working, citation needed tags, poor image layout, the prose needs attention, I think the article is better organized now but there's a lot of cruft and borderline trivia that probably needs to be removed, there are too many stubby sections even after I reorganized, almost none of the citations are correctly or completely formatted; in short, there's work to be done, and it's time to get on with it or defeature the article. Are editors actively working on this? If so, I'll help; if not, I'm a remove. There are many problems. Also an image check is going to be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're still working on it. Thank you for your many minor edits yesterday; I'd appreciate it if you'd list your concerns more specifically on the talk page, as I did, so that other editors can discuss and implement them. I'm a Keep at this point, but then I did a lot on this after my earlier comments, got rid of a lot of trivia and tried to consolidate sections, and added more relevant info.

As for images, we have at least four free ones in the article (the sign, the tower, the mall atrium and the writing staff). I added a few screenshots that, per the above commentary, depict the show's major characters in its main setting (and one which illustrates a scene described in adjacent text). I will be reuploading an image of the show's title later today. So we do have more than one free image in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm chipping away at this as I find time, but it needs a lot of work. It can be saved if the regular editors can replace all the dead links and missing sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm about halfway through cleanup, but the article has a lot of issues that need to be addressed. There are numerous dead links and non-reliable sources (I'm tagging as I go), there are some fragmented and disorganized sections (likely because content was added over time by different editors, I left inline notes), uncited text, I still have MoS cleanup to finish, there is a substantial amount of trivia, and there was an entire WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX section dedicated to one editorial opinion that claimed a comparison of the show's characters to Bush and Cheney. I'll keep chipping away as I have time, but this is a lot of work and the article was not in featured shape; unless the regular editors can quickly begin updating sources and removing trivia, this might not be a save. Also, the "Characters" section is deficient (only a list, no analysis or description); strangley, the featured version did contain a Character section.[1] There's also a lot of original research: the further I get into this, the worse it looks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was going to remove this but Daniel's been working today. So, sigh, we wait some more. Marskell (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: As my first foray into FAR, I’ll enter my thoughts as comments. At FAC, I typically enter an oppose when three or more images have concerns, so take that as you will.
  • The stated purpose of Image:TheOffice(US)1-02.jpg is “[to] depict typical scene from show, with two main characters in regular setting”. Three other images currently in the article display (at least) two characters in a regular setting. WP:NFCC#3A requires "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article" and "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice". Image, additionally, is not low resolution (NFCC#3B).
  • Image:TheMerger.jpg purportedly depicts a “key scene”, yet the adjacent prose makes no mention of the reunion. The implication seems to be that either this is not actually a key scene, or that the prose is not providing adequate summary. Image, additionally, is not low resolution (NFCC#3B).
  • Image:Dunder mifflin banner scranton.jpg is actually licensed as Attribution 2.0 Generic, not Attribution 3.0 Unported.
  • NFCC#3A purists could even argue - successfully, I think - that Image:The Office US title.jpg is unnecessary, as it's only real purpose is to identify the topic (to use the common boilerplate: to confirm to the reader that they have reached the "correct" article). It's stated purpose ("Depict title of series") is at best inadequte; why is this necessary (NFCC#3A) and important for our understanding (NFCC#8)? Would not either Image:GayWitchHunt.jpg or Image:TheMerger.jpg satisfy the need to identify the program? One has to have some familiarity with the program for the images to work as identifiers, so it seems a scene would function as well, if not better, than a placard flashed briefly at the beginning of the show. Again, per minimal usage, we want to endeavor to find images that serve multiple functions (i.e. two birds, one stone).
  • Ultimately, I think Image:TheOffice(US)1-02.jpg and Image:Office us cast.jpg need to go, as they appear to fail minimal usage (NFCC#3A) and significant contribution (NFCC#8). Remaining images provide sufficient context (setting, costume, cinematography, expressions, etc) and depiction of key characters (Michael, Jim, Pam) – a free use of Wilson would suffice if Dwight needs representation (given office attire and no unique makeup, etc, real life Wilson looks identical to Dwight in ways meaningful and substantive to our understanding). I'm not sure how I feel about Image:The Office US title.jpg, thoughts? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to the comment above that, as of when I started working on it, there was only one screenshot in the whole article, depicting Pam and Jim, that it showed only two major characters and then not in the office. I can certainly rewrite the accompanying text. I have advocated for removing that cast photo anyway for a variety of reasons above and beyond questionable fair use (outdated, difficult to identify cast members at that size) and lately it's become difficult to place in the layout. I had included the title card shot because every other TV show has one ... I see we'll be on firmer ground if we have less screenshots and use the free image of Wilson where we currently have the "Diversity Day" shot. That's fine; that works. Back at it tonight; I have to go now. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Some variation of Image:TheOffice(US)1-02.jpg would probably be most useful in the article - scenes of Michael addressing his employees in the conference room are common, and it would be a great way to fit multiple main cast members into a single shot. Image:Office us cast.jpg does not appear to be of significant quality to really identify any of the characters, and the cast shot is outdated. Image:GayWitchHunt.jpg and Image:TheMerger.jpg don't really depict anything of great importance to the show. I'm fine with the use of Image:The Office US title.jpg, it seems to satisfy fair use guidelines (and displaying the opening credits' title card appears to be common practice on Wikipedia articles.) - Chardish (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to work with images we already had rather than upload a new one. But yes, I'll go look through the NBC website to see if I can find a shot of Michael addressing everyone in the conference room. Or somewhere else. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have access to every episode through season three. If there's a particular scene wanted, just let me know. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

IOW, you have the DVD collection. The best I had found on the NBC site was one from "Grief Counseling" in which they have the funeral for the bird ... but in the parking lot. But Michael, Dwight and most of the other characters are in it.

I'd shoot for any group shot in the conference room. The later sections of "Diversity Day", the ones where Michael does his "Diversity Tomorrow" thing, should have a lot of opportunities. "Grief Counseling" has conference room scenes as well and has the benefit of being more recent. Try "The Merger" as well. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, you don't really realize it until you're looking for a group shot, but these folks are only really "together" outside of the office. In the office, they're segmented into departments or Michael is up in front of the troops in meetings (i.e. someone's back is always to the camera, as they're facing each other instead of us). My search continues... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a quick shot at the end of "Conflict Resolution", where Michael attempted to get a group picture. Ill check later today. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Two sections still need writing/re-writing: International broadcasts (which is a mish-mash), and Characters (which is just a list). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My plan right now is to bring back the old characters section and bring it up to snuff. Will do same with int'l broadcasts (could that maybe be tableized?) Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to get more work on the article done this weekend. I've been busy in the past week working with season articles and the main episode list. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 03:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good, because I'll be away. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking much better ! A final push to clean up the remaining citation needed tags, and smooth out International broadcasts, and it should be there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Prose problems—1a.

• Not pleased with some of the prose. I took a small sample at the top of "Production" and was disappointed to find issues such as:
  • "elements of episodes in the British series turned up in plots" --> "elements of the British series turned up in plots".
  • No big deal, but nicer if the clauses reversed: "The show does not use a laugh track, in keeping with the mockumentary format."
  • "was filmed in an actual office space"—Spot the redundant word.
  • No reason provided as to why they moved into a replicated set in a studio.
  • "sung or performed"—singing is performance. Tony (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just inches away. Can those last cite tags be taken care? Marskell (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Still not pleased with the prose, layout, and form. Where is the brilliant prose that gives us an idea of what the show is typically about? Where is the "executive summary", so to speak? It feels like the article gives a cursory dictionary definition of what the show is in the first (very brief) paragraph, and then immediately dives into minutiae and production details, spending lengthy sections talking about how the show is made before even addressing what it's like. The plot synopsis section is still very poorly written and heavily favors the romantic plot arcs - they're a notable part of the show, for sure, but the synopsis makes the show sound like a soap opera. Still needs lots of work. - Chardish (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Later this weekend (not that there's much of that), I will be rewriting the intro to more comprehensively summarize the entire article (always the last aspect of any writing or rewriting I do). Sorry ... I've been away on a short vacation, then started to work on some other articles related to that vacation. This needs so little to finally keep the star. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Remove in the current state. It has quite a bit of referencing issues, with several statements having no source and a few nearly whole sections as well. Some of the existing references are in need of formatting fixing. The entire Season synopses section seems excessive, particularly when there is already an episode list with individual season lists branching off that. The whole section really needs to go, with the episode formats worked into the production section, and a general plot summary put in its place with the link off to the episode list. The webisode stuff can go down in the main section on those. "Cast blogs" what does that have to do with the show at all? And that first sentence just reads badly, almost sarcastically. Awards belongs under Reception/Response, and the season ratings table should be prosed worked into the rest of the ratings section (or better yet, left to the season lists). Seems to have an awful lot of decorative images, even if some are free. It needs to be compared to the TV MoS to make sure its still following it, as it has changed since this article was first promoted. Collectonian (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Collectonian, can you provide some specifics? Elcobbola has been through the images, and I trust him as well as anyone. I've been through the citation formatting: has something changed since I was in there a week or so ago? What are the citation formatting issues? Examples please. There is very little unreferenced text. Can you provide examples? There seem to be enough people willing to work on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 25 is badly formatted. Ref 95 has multiple links in one source. Ref 90 isn't a ref at all, just an extraneous note. For specific unreferenced statements:

• Writers - entire section but a single mid-sentence citation
• Production - entire paragraph is not supported by ref 8. Use of ref 8 starts at "Featured music tends to be well known..."
• Directors - entire section
• Casting - "Schur has also made occasional appearances as Dwight's cousin Mose, and consulting producer Wilmore has played diversity trainer Mr. Brown."
• Deleted scenes - entire section (source is non-existant)
• Product placement - "In the Season two episode "The Secret" Michael takes Jim to Hooters to discuss Jim's feelings for Pam. In another episode: "The Merger" Angela refers to Hooters as a strip club causing Michael to defend Hooters as a family place, and informs the camera of how many chains there are worldwide."
• Local color - Source does not full support the section, as "Poor Richard's bar" is unmentioned in source
• Characters - includes unsourced interpretive statements
• Season synopses - various sections missing sources on airdates and "The Accountants" has no refs at all for non-plot summary statements
• Critical reviews and commentary - "The show was also on Time Magazine's "The 100 Best TV Shows of All-TIME" list."
• Seasonal ratings - entire table example last three columns (and does not make clear that all three columns are sourced from same source).
• International broadcast - several sentences already marked for needing citations
• Online releases - already tagged
• DVD releases - entire table
• Promotional - "Dunder Mifflin has two websites,[95] and the cast members maintain blogs both as themselves and in character." - only first half is sourced
• Cast blogs - "Since actors must sit at their desks even when not actively participating in a scene, they have ample opportunities to use the functional, Internet-connected computers to browse the Internet, play games, and blog."
• Awards - entire table

I think that's all of them Collectonian (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Partial reply Ref 25 is formatted that way because WP blacklists blog.myspace.com links (see the inline comment). I do not understand why notes 95 and 90 are a problem. Footnotes can be used for giving extra information (although in this case, I'd suggest renaming the section Notes and References or just Notes). BuddingJournalist 03:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If its blacklisted, why is it being used as a source at all? Collectonian (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. OK, this is probably a pet peeve of mine, and it's a problem endemic to Wikipedia, but here it's more apparent than elsewhere... The article's first line has "American" piped to United States. Why can't is be "U.S." as per the article title itself? There are, after all, many millions of people who live in hemisphere who consider themselves American without being part of the USA. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Although fictional and scripted, the mockumentary takes the form of a documentary." Isn't this redundant? The whole point of a mockumentary is that it is, um, a mock documentary. Already the article's looking bad under the patented jbmurray first-couple-of-paragraphs test. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Based on the British series of the same name, it was adapted." Dependent clause problem. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. I was going to dive in and copy-edit this, as is my wont, but wasn't even sure where to start. The article's a mess, IMO: the organization and structure are all over the place, with short, stubby sections that focus on trivia. It needs a complete overhaul. And I see it's been up on FAR for a couple of months now, so doubt it's going to improve much more any time soon. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Closing. Somehow this managed to become one of the longest reviews ever. At one point, I actually had it archived as remove and reverted myself to give it more time. But eventually we have to end things. I have two non-trivial removes two-and-a-half months in and it's time. I said it was inches looking at the ref formatting, but more closely examining the organization and prose I think the remove camp takes the argument. No article should contain a Miscellaneous section, for instance. Or how about the second sentence: "Although fictional and scripted, the mockumentary takes the form of a documentary, with the presence of the camera openly acknowledged." That's not a logical construction. In terms of surgery, the stub sections are the biggest issue. So I'm removing. Daniel and others, there has been improvement and hopefully you can build on it further and perhaps take it back to FAC. Marskell (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC) (Oh goodness, Jb had already noted the second sentence. I guess that's the spot to start.) Marskell (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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