Talk:Search Committee

Search Committee 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 11, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 28, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force.

James Spader for Office Manager[edit]

James Spader "Killed" as prospective office manager. I really hope he is offered it and wants it.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Search Committee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 19:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

So was the episode a two-parter? Why is it "the 151st and 152nd episodes of the series overall and the 25th and 26th episodes of the seventh season" if it aired as one single, hour-long episode?

It is counted as a two-parter, but it aired as a one-hour episode, like other Office episodes NoD'ohnuts (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

Wikilink Jim in lead
There's no need to have references for guest stars in infobox if they're listed in production section (or add them if they're not there).
The "Synopsis" is much too long; its meant to be a brief summary of the plot
There's a number of cultural references I feel you could add (see [1], [2], [3] etc
Expand production section with this interview and this
Ref 5: Did Ricky Gervais write the blog? If so, add him as author to ref
Just looking through some reviews (some you included, but there are others), a lot of writers seemed happy that Erin and Phyllis weren't actually mother and daughter. You could add this in (like "Many critics expressed relief that Erin and Phyllis were not mother and daughter."[Ref][Ref][Ref]
That big paragraph in the production section doesn't look very good; try splitting it up by casting and writing
Use consistent ref formatting (compare 4 to 5 for example; find others)
It's The Huffington Post, TV by the Numbers, TVLine, RickyGervais.com (i.e. issues with italicization)
Wikilink all publishers, or none

Will place review on hold for seven days while above comments get addressed. Please respond here when you have finished. Ruby comment! 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI: there is one more day to respond here and address the above concerns, or the review will be failed. Thanks, Ruby comment! 00:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the warning above and eight days in this review, no response has been given to above comments. I am unfortunately failing this review. Feel free to nominate at a later time. I would happy to review the article again. Thanks, Ruby comment! 17:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, i've been very busy lately, but I'm going to renominate it and i hope you review the article NoD'ohnuts (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

Producer's Cut on DVD[edit]

I tried to make an edit about this episode being the first to have a Producer's Cut go straight to DVD without first airing online. The original was 44 minutes while the DVD Producer's Cut was 55 minutes and 54 seconds (making it the longest episode to date). Although the editor who deleted called it trivial, all of the other episodes with Producer's Cuts are at minimum mentioned in their respective articles. Some articles even have a full section dedicated to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.39.200.85 (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is under a Good Article review and that is not needed, sorry NoD'ohnuts (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Search Committee/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 03:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one again in the next day or two. Ruby comment! 03:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of things I mentioned in the previous review that you never applied to the article's improvement. For example, this interview with Paul Lieberstein would add a lot to the production section. You used a little from this one, but I see more you can add (like what B.J. Novak liked about the finale etc). Your cultural refs are pretty shoddy. Add more from the links I gave in the previous review! I'll wait til you act on these suggestions before reviewing further. As before, PLEASE respond here when you think you have finished making these edits, as I watchlist the review, NOT the article. Thanks, Ruby comment! 17:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed the problems NoD'ohnuts (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

"In addition to appearing in the episode, Gervais contributed to the script.[5]" -> In addition to appearing in "Search Committee", Gervais contributed to the script.
Mention Gervais is a producer of American series
"Initially the guest stars were planned to be a secret, before all were revealed to the media" . Who revealed the guest stars to the media?
"Lieberstein described the episode as "it's more than a montage. It's a number of scenes. We fit it in. We stuff it in".[6" Make clear Lieberstein is referring to the guest stars' scenes. Otherwise it just looks disjointed from the previous statements.
This was the last episode to not feature Steve Carrel. Incorporate this part of the Paul Lieberstein interview ([4]) to article:

What was the feeling around the set the first week after Steve Carell's departure?
It was weird. It felt weird around here. The last week with Steve had been so emotional that it really felt like ... it was just very odd to be here without him. It was like oh, life goes on, OK. I guess we'll just keep doing our jobs. But it didn't take long for the mood to switch to kind of this very hopeful, excited and anticipatory feeling that anything could happen now. And that turned out to be very creatively exciting for everyone.
Where does that feeling come from?
Well, we had come to understand what an episode is with Michael, you know. And we played a lot of them -- we played about 150 of them. I think he got to episode 149. So it's a little bit different when you don't have someone taking the majority of the lines for an episode. When you don't have the show centered around a buffoon who tends to make a bad decision and then spends the rest of the episode trying to dig his way out of something. It was kind of a feeling that we get to do something new again, that we are kind of reinventing the show a little. And granted, not much. It's the same people that you've seen before, for years and years. It's just someone's role, I guess, is a little slightly different when the show is centered around them.^[1]

There's still more from that interview that I would incorporate into an episode article were I the article writer (I wish my Fringe episodes had that kind of interview detail!)

It mostly features several things about previous episodes NoD'ohnuts (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

You have not "fixed [all] the problems" by the way. The cultural references section looks awful right now. Add more to it (I provided useful links in the last GA review, and I know there are many more suitable reviews that mention things said in the episode.)

*Thats the only cultural reference the links you sent me have NoD'ohnuts (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

If you'd actually looked you'd see there's more:

A.V. Club and EW: mentions of Sesame Street

"I'm probably just another Porky’s baby"
"Um, how do I know that Robert is gay? He liked my Facebook photos at three in the morning"
"Aren’t there some things that you really want to like but just can’t seem to like it? Like Mad Men? Or football?"

OfficeTally: Phyllis: "It was a big year for babies. Porky's had come out". Erin: "I'm sure I was just another Porky's baby. But why not find out?"

Angela: "It's a little flashy. I mean, what am I, Naomi Judd?"
Ryan: Let me guess what you want, Pam. Rachael Ray? The ladies of The View"?

References

It's The Huffington Post (wikilink it too)

It's Variety (wikilink it)

Wikilink all publishers that have articles on Wikipedia (IGN etc).

As before, I'll wait to add more after you have addressed above comments. Ruby comment! 17:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have edited the problems to the article, although I might have missed a few NoD'ohnuts (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still more cultural refs to add. Ruby comment! 06:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? NoD'ohnuts (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot is still much to long
Explain more about David Brent (i.e. that was the name of his character on The Office etc)
Weird is spelled wrong, and the sentence needs to be reworded
also allowed... also allowed (sloppy)
couldn't -> could not Ruby comment! 05:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed those, although I couldn't condense the plot section completely, although it was an hour long episode NoD'ohnuts (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After my own edits, I believe the article has now reached the GA criteria. Pass. Ruby comment! 03:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You NoD'ohnuts (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Search Committee. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 02:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference ew review was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[ew_review-1] Cite error: The named reference ew review was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]