Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joeyconnick (talk | contribs) at 07:34, 22 June 2017 (→External links modified: checked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	The O.C. was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 23, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed

This page is not a forum for general discussion about The O.C.. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The O.C. at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television: The O.C. Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the O.C. task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soap Operas This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California: Los Angeles Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

Elements

Anyone object to a section being added about recurring elements. Some other series have like recurring jokes and etc. Just would be a good place to mention (and link to article) for christmukkah, among other recurring elements for the show. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would depend on what exactly these recurring elements are. Each element should be individually notable and we should avoid a trivia section. On a related note, Chrismukkah already has it's own article. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot tag

Boldly removed plot tag. Please comment on what you see as a problem. It seems reasonable to me. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Gregory House and O.C.

The following TV characters have revealed themselves to be fans of The O.C.:

• Dr. Gregory House (House)

Where did G. House said, that he is a fan of O.C.?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.29.47 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Where's The SEason 2 Descrip?

( —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToonIsALoon (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Revamp

Okay I'm going to try and revamp this. It will take some time and sections will need to be remove completely redone. Here is my outline of what sections I think should eventually exist:

Production

Concept  Done (largely) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Filming locations  Done (largely) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Music  Done (largely) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Series overview

Cast and characters

Distribution (i.e. First-run TV, syndication, DVDs)  Question:

Worked into the following sections

• First run broadcast
• Cancellation
• Media releases

Might need a syndication section? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Impact

Ratings  Done (largely) 00:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards  Done (largely) 13:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Critical reception

Fandom and popular culture

Complementary media

Feel free to help. My initial concerns are the popular culture section is far to large, and the characters section needs a lot of work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing section

I am removing the following section as I feel it is WP:UNDUE:

"Save the O.C." webpage

I PROMISE to cancel dinner dates, skip night school classes, trade shifts with a co-worker, walk the dog after dinner and do whatever else is necessary to ensure that I am on my couch each and every Thursday night at 9pm. And when I am on that couch at that time, I will do nothing but watch The O.C. I vow to do this every week to show my support for Ryan, Seth, Summer, Sandy, Kirsten, Julie and all of those new people that I love. With my humble effort each week, I will help build a groundswell of support for one of the best shows on television, The O.C. With this virtual signature, I THEE WATCH.

The .../savetheoc website is long dead and archive.org exists but without visible content. The quote can be referenced by this but I still think it is unnecessary. As such I am removing this section and will just tweak the sentence in "Cancellation" to refer to the petition and signatures as mentioned below. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Series Overview section?

I am questioning the necessity of the newly added Series Overview section in the article. I initially tried to clean up the submission as there was a lot of commentary and other issues with it, but after doing so I question if it should even really be there. While certainly concise enough per wp:plot, it is still rather scattered in reading due to being incomplete with highlights. It also seems rather repetitive with regards to the relationships - and while they are indeed that way in the show itself - it reads rather circular. I am thinking maybe a rewrite without the seasonal blow-by-blow to just illustrate the larger overall plotlines and the issues that the characters dealt with from more of a birds-eye view. Thoughts? Srobak (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Prominent guest stars

I am questioning the necessity of featuring "prominent guest stars" under the cast section. I was going to remove it but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion here on the talk page. In my reasoning for wanting to remove the prominent guest stars section, I'm questioning what exactly makes a guest star prominent? Is it that they are a recurring guest star? And even so, recurring characters/guest stars should not be included on the main page and should just be on the "Characters of The O.C." page. Also, seeing as how there are no exact guidelines as to how a guest star is "prominent", certain guest stars may be excluded from that list when that are in fact prominent enough to make that list, or a guest star may be added to that list when they are not prominent enough to make that list. The 90210 page had a similar section with prominent recurring characters but was also found unnecessary and undue, so it was removed. Ryanlively (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would actually go so far as to say a page dedicated simply to the list of guest stars - prominent or not - is over-cooking it a bit. Can't say that even prominent guest stars are significant enough to warrant their own page, and as such - recurring characters which do serve an impact in the overall storyline should be left on the main article page so as not to clutter up WP with articles lacking significance on their own. Srobak (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Mention it?

Why isn´t the American Dream mentioned in the article? Doesn´t Ryan live it to the fullest through the help of his family. Maybe we have to add this. What do you think? -amkx3- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.128.64.149 (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Cast and characters in-universe problems

The "Cast and Characters" section of the articles is very in-universe, describing the characters as if they were real people living real lives. I am honestly not sure how to improve it so I am just creating this section if anyone wants to contribute suggestions for how we can make that section less in-universe. I think one way we can do that is include the actors' commentary on their characters. Cadiomals (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of trivial content

I removed Penny Lane's contributions because they do not abide by what Misplaced Pages is not. Much of the info was irrelevant trivia which is against WP:TRIVIA. I also temporarily removed the "Fandom and popular culture" section until a more encyclopedic one can be produced because most of it was trivial commentary. It has to abide by WP:POPCULTURE. In general, this article has a number of problems which I am trying to improve, in order that this article may one day qualify for GA status. Sorry, Penny, but although your contributions were in good faith, they were not encyclopedic and don't help to improve the article's quality. Cadiomals (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the content was actually already in the article, I was just trying to clean it up. I actually based it off the http://en.wikipedia.org/Arrested_Development_%28TV_series%29#Themes_and_other_characteristics section. We could probably lose the section on "Cultural References" (because that isn't very unique to the series, though I might keep some mention of the literature habits of the characters, as I cited that some critics have called it a unique aspect of the series). I feel like "The Valley" and "Chrismukkah" -- even though I know it has it's own page -- (and Music should, of course, stay) should be identified in the article because they function as unique aspects and recurring themes to solely this series. Penny Lane's America (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think the 'Dear Sister' paragraph needs to be added back in as it's the biggest spotlight the series has had in popular culture since the series went off the air. Penny Lane's America (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think a pop culture section should be added, but we have to be careful not to add too much trivia and make sure its relevant and well sourced and abides by WP:POPCULTURE. You can make a "Fandom and popular culture" section again but make sure not to dwell too much on unimportant topics. I'll improve it where I see fit. Thanks, Cadiomals (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Characters

I think it would be interesting to also add more about the character relationships especially about the constant struggle that Ryan, Marissa, Seth, and Summer always find themselves in so that they can all be together. Also another really interesting aspect about the show is the amount of repetition that takes place. Maybe that would fit somewhere. Cwalkerr21 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't really belong in the Cast and Characters subject because then it would be too "in-universe." In this section we actually try to provide more information about casting and how the actors portrayed the characters rather than what went on the fictional lives of the characters themselves. Cadiomals (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Criteria

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Most of the prose is pretty good, but unfortunately the article is so large that a lot needs additional work before it meets GA criteria. The prose is generally clear and usually concise with some notable exceptions. Clarity is sometimes an issue when editors are trying to write too concisely. There are a few instances of this problem in the article. An early one is found in the "Plot" section. In season 3, are Seth and Summer vying for the same spot at Brown, or two different spots? In "Cast and Characters", Marissa does not leave "the series at the end of season three when her character was subsequently written off by being killed in a car accident". This sentence is impossible. It implies that Marissa leaves the series before her character was killed. Being written off is an extraneous detail, and is implied because the events happen in the show's diegetic world. It should read something like "Barton left the show at the end of season three when her character was killed in a car accident". Some editors seem to be using words because they like the way they sound without knowing quite what they mean. In the second season synopsis, Marissa's relationships are described as "tumultuous", but are they? The literal meaning of this word is close to excited, confused, or disorderly. The writer seems to mean something closer to "dysfunctional". Under "Cast and Characters" Ryan forms "fast bonds" with other characters. Is this supposed to mean he forms bonds quickly (implied) or that he forms strong bonds (as written)? Watch out for this stuff. Just because it sounds good doesn't mean it's right, or clear, or improves the article. The article is unnecessarily wordy at times. In the synopsis of season three, Sandy's "moral compass becomes imperilled" and Ryan "attempts to resolve his individual relationships". The first sentence means that Sandy's (metaphorical) moral compass is in danger, while the second throws an "individual" in there for the hell of it. In plain english, Sandy's morals are challenged, while Ryan sorts out his personal life (demons?). Seth is described as "the awkward adolescent son of Sandy and Kirsten". The adjective "adolescent" is redundant. Seth is the same age as Ryan, Summer, or Marissa. Seth should be "Sandy's and Kirsten's awkward son". There seems to be a lot of confusion in the article about how possessives work. Possessives help us escape the "the / of" construction. Instead of "the husband of Kirsten" or "the wife of Sandy", concision demands "Kirsten's husband" and "Sandy's wife". Four words become two. Again, just because it sounds more formal doesn't mean it's better writing. Unfortunately, I don't have time to list every problem. Be assured there are quite a few, and most take the general forms listed above. Don't assume I've found everything. After my fourth reading, I was still finding new issues.	Fail
(b) (MoS)	The lead is well written and concise, but incomplete. All it needs is mention of the show's role as musical tastemaker. Layout is a problem. "Themes and other characteristics" is a generic section and acts as a dumping ground whenever an editor thinks something merits inclusion but doesn't know where else to put it. It needs to be split into "Themes", and probably a second section like "Cultural impact" which should include thinks like Chrismukkah, Music, discussion of fandom, spinoffs, books, and maybe even critical reception (as a sub section). Even the title of this section sticks out like a sore thumb. Also, how is the character list organized? Either list by first appearance or alphabetically by actor, or character name. Trying to rate minor characters is too finicky and prone to bias. Get past it by splitting the list into core cast and recurring minor characters, or by following a rigid organizational scheme. Most of the content of "Complementary media" is so minor in importance I question whether it merits inclusion on the encyclopedia, and should maybe be reduced to a list at the bottom of the article. Due to many, many missing citations, the article has a major problem with words to watch. Any time a word like (but not limited to) "frequently", "often", "many" or "widely" is used, be prepared to back it up with citation. On their own, these are weasel words and under no circumstances should they be used they way they are in this article. For instance, if a sentence starts "She is often characterized" (Julie Cooper, "Cast and Characters"), that claim needs to be backed by three or more citations, or removed immediately. This happens a lot in the article; again, there are too many instances to list, and I kept noticing more.	Fail

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	While many, many claims are supported by surprisingly detailed citation, many more go uncited. Specifically, if a claim is made about the plot of the show, the episode in which that event takes place must be cited. In short: prove it or lose it. The most egregious offenders here are the entire "Plot" and "Cast and characters" sections.	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Admirably, the many citations rely primarily on well-respected, free, and electronically available sources. Bravo. However, there are many glaring omissions. As a rule, any time you use quotation marks, cite your source. Until everything is cited, I can't pass the article in this section.	Fail
(c) (original research)	Until I see citations for everything, I can't be sure. What is cited is backed up very well.	Fail

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article is remarkably thorough in what it chooses to cover, but does not adequately cover everything included in the article. Chief offender here is the "Themes and other characteristics" section. Far too much space is devoted to "other characteristics", while little effort is given to explicate the various themes mentioned. If a theme is important to the show, where is it important? I agree that the major themes should be covered in the article, but coverage should be cited and expanded somewhat. Removal of the section entirely would mean the article would fail to cover all of the major aspects. I would be satisfied with a more thorough explication of three of four of the more important themes, say, Social class, Hope, Emotional insecurity, and Drug addiction.	Fail
(b) (focused)	I am concerned by the number of characters the article mentions but fails to describe. At various points, the article mentions Anna, Oliver, D.J., Lindsay Gardner, Zach, Alex Kelly, Trey, Theresa Diaz, Dawn Atwood. These characters are either important enough to mention, or not important enough to be listed in the Cast and characters section, but not both.	Fail

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Unless there's a secret cache of negative opinion somewhere on the internet, the article does a good job of representing critical opinion of the show during its run. The show was a pop cultural phenomenon with a large fan base. The article reflects this reality.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
There have been several edits, some major, since the article was nominated for GA status. None of these seem to be the result of an edit war, and most of them appear to improve the article.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Everything is fine save the picture of the DVD set in "Media releases", which does not have an adequate fair use rationale. The image needs to be updated with a fair use rationale before it can pass GA criteria.	Fail
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Captions and images are appropriate.	Pass

Result

Result

Notes

Fail

Too much needs to happen before this article can be passed to warrant holding it. Characters that are necessary to mention in the plot sections must also appear in the characters section. Episode citations are almost entirely absent, and a major copyedit needs to be done. Several dead links need fixing. Weasel words are rampant. The article needs to be reorganized, and every section needs to have a reason for being where it is in the article. Consider splitting the character section into major and minor character sections, and creating a new cultural impact section for things like music, merchandise, fandom, and critical reception. A lot of work has gone into this version, but a lot more needs to happen before it meets GA criteria. Good luck. Please re-nominate the article when the problems have been addressed. Thank you.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional Notes

1. ^ "Save The OC" (). Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. Retrieved January 4, 2007.
2. Talpade, Anuj (February 11, 2008). "The countdown for OC IV begins". Essel Group. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
3. Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
4. Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
5. This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
6. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
7. Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
8. The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Reviewer: Rawlangs (talk · contribs) 22:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Postmodernism, really?

"The series includes elements of postmodernism" - I can't tell if this is somebody having a joke. Khendon (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The O.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070320065055/http://digitalcontentproducer.com:80/digitalfilm/video_production_meets_post/ to http://digitalcontentproducer.com/digitalfilm/video_production_meets_post/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090907162516/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002576393 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002576393
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100129154626/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/television/features/e3ifbfdd1bcb53266ad8d9a71cad261604f to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/features/e3ifbfdd1bcb53266ad8d9a71cad261604f

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The O.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080309034530/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/arts/television/21POSN.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=158d7ee8845cb98e&ex=1395205200&partner=USERLAND to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/arts/television/21POSN.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=158d7ee8845cb98e&ex=1395205200&partner=USERLAND
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090328232032/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/services/motion-pictures/4889998-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/services/motion-pictures/4889998-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090821010301/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000937471 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000937471

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The O.C.. 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/20120421004220/http://www.news.com.au/news/top-movie-role-reversals/story-fna7dq6e-1111113731558 to http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0%2C28383%2C21892173-10388%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430204818/http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/11864730.html to http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/11864730.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) 19:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The O.C.. 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/20090328195629/http://www.entertainment.currys.co.uk/currys/9947548.product to http://www.entertainment.currys.co.uk/currys/9947548.product

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) 16:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The O.C.. 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/20071028073507/http://media.www.theseahawk.org/media/storage/paper287/news/2007/01/25/Lifestyles/Fox-Says.Farewell.To.the.O.c-2670083.shtml to http://media.www.theseahawk.org/media/storage/paper287/news/2007/01/25/Lifestyles/Fox-Says.Farewell.To.the.O.c-2670083.shtml
• Added archive https://archive.is/2012.12.05-075254/http://www.hollywood.com/news/WGA_Announces_Screenplay_Noms/1740296 to http://www.hollywood.com/news/WGA_Announces_Screenplay_Noms/1740296

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) 23:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• B-Class The O.C. articles
• Top-importance The O.C. articles
• The O.C. task force articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• B-Class soap opera articles
• WikiProject Soap Operas articles
• B-Class California articles
• Low-importance California articles
• B-Class Los Angeles articles
• Low-importance Los Angeles articles
• Los Angeles area task force articles
• WikiProject California articles