# Talk:The Injury

The link to the Prism DuroSport website was not spam. The site in question features more information on the unique mp3 player that was featured in this episode.  Please check more carefully before removing relevant content.

Please read your talk page. Thanks, Mrtea (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - although I have to say you missed the mark.  I DID NOT re-add the link in question, and did move to discuss it on the talk page (as you'll see above).  So I'm not sure I understand the tone of your message.

The wristband trivia was added because people kept pointing it out as a watch and calling it a goof. What is our policy on "non-trivia" (i.e., how to prevent people from adding bogus trivia)? -- Raymondc0 18:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Injury/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.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, 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: 
The article has a "red link", if it doesn't have an article, it would be best to un-link it, per here.
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): 

C. It contains no original research: 
Is TV.com a reliable source?
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

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): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

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

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: 

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) 22:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed red-links. I changed the TV.com reference to one from NBC.com (doesn't get much more official than that). --Mr.crabby ''''' (Talk) 23:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you to Mr.crabby for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Injury. 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/episode-guide/season-2/58601/1/16/newest/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120105063559/http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-2/58601/the-injury/episode-212/58834/ to http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-2/58601/the-injury/episode-212/58834/
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) 14:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)