Talk:Fun Run

	Fun Run 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 July 1, 2008 Good article nominee Listed November 25, 2008 Good topic candidate Promoted March 8, 2026 Good topic removal candidate Demoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Episode coverage / The Office Low‑importance 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. Comedy Low‑importance 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.

There really doesn't need to be more than 40 lines of "notes". Wikipedia is trying to eliminate "trivia" sections that doesn't mean rename it that means put it in the synopsis or dump it. This is a half hour TV show people(1 hour for this episode) the page about it doesn't need to be more than 3 screens full. The brief page about this episode should easily fit into one page maybe a page and a half since it is a two parter. It should be a review of the episode NOT telling people everything they missed if they haven't seen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.117.88 (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why does "Rabies Shot" link to another episode page? This is confusing; I was expecting to go to a rabies page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.129.2.15 (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Angela tells Pam about a problem with Dwight in this episode, and she uses his name. Is this the first time Angela has acknowledged the relationship to someone else? Could go in trivia if so, but I'm not positive. Slurms MacKenzie 17:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

She said she was concerned that Dwight had killed her cat after he was asked to feed it. That's not exactly confirmation of a relationship. --207.230.140.240 18:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Someone captioned the page's main picture with a spoiler. :(

Angela knows Pam knows about her relationship from Conflict Resolution. So do Ryan and Jim. —Preceding

unsigned comment added by 74.101.140.220 (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You mean the "Bobblehead Joe" comment? It does imply Pam knows, but Angela doesn't acknowledge it, and she still refers to her friend "Noelle" as of Traveling Salesmen. And in this episode, I believe she leads into her comments by saying she is having relationship problems... Slurms MacKenzie 07:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fun Run/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   It would be best if the references use the {{cite web}} format.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for fixing the ref. settings, Mr.crabby, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fun Run. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/episodes/season4/4002/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080629193759/http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/bios/Greg_Daniels.shtml to http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/bios/greg_daniels.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113212526/http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-4/59501/fun-run/episode-401/59502/ to http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-4/59501/fun-run/episode-401/59502/

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) 15:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fun Run. 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/20080706020748/http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TV-Show-Blog/Office/Joining-Fight-Cure/800023189 to http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TV-Show-Blog/Office/Joining-Fight-Cure/800023189

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) 21:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fun Run. 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/20080617065345/http://blog.zap2it.com/ithappenedlastnight/2007/09/office-premiere.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/ithappenedlastnight/2007/09/office-premiere.html

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) 21:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply