Talk:Camping (Parks and Recreation)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Miyagawa   (talk)  21:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding a quick note to say that I will review. I'll give the article a read through now and add any points that come up below. Miyagawa  (talk)  21:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cultural references: Can you have a look to see if you merge a couple of sentences into one another, as at the moment it feels like its a list with the line breaks removed. The actual content itself is good, just the flow needs to be looked at.
 * Yeah, this is always a challenge, given the nature of these sections. I tried to rework it a bit, placed everything in order so that the related bits are together (mostly Tom/tent stuff in the first paragraph, Leslie stuff in the second) to make this flow better. Let me know if it needs more work. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ratings: Would it be possible to change defeated in the final sentence, perhaps to "beat" or similar - its just that defeated is quite a prominent word in the previous sentence.
 * Done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Images: Is it possible to add a low quality screencap from the episode to the infobox with a fair use rationale?
 * I had an image, but it's now up for deletion, so I just nominated the episode without a photo. Perhaps there is a better image that can be used with a fair use rationale. (I thought about maybe the inside of the tent, to actually show all Tom's luxury items, maybe.) Maybe you can help me identify one: after reading the article, is there anything in particular you feel could be illustrated to help further the readers' understanding of the episode? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Good job so far, apart from those few issues everything checks out. I'll place the article on hold for the moment. Miyagawa  (talk)  22:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I understand completely about the image, it's only a nice to have because there are no free use images available. Happy to grade this as a GA following those improvements. Good job. Miyagawa  (talk)  20:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)