Talk:Parks and Recreation/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 00:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review Comments

Lead

• MOS:LEADCITE says that only controversial statements or quotes need an in-line in the lead. Many of the current citations are unnecessary.
• The conception subsection should be represented here but The writers researched local California politics for the series, and consulted with urban planners and elected officials. doesn't seem like the right choice for it.
• In general I think the LEAD struggles with MOS:LEADREL with some trivia included while other information worthy of summary excluded. I would look at The Office (US) as a model.

Episodes

• The season summaries are heavy on who is dating whom. I question whether these are always the most important pieces of information for short summaries.
• Seems astounding that the Season 2 summary doesn't mention Leslie at all. For instance Dave is mentioned as coming back in season 4 but not for the original arc in 2.
• Seasons 4 & 5 are completely unsourced.
• Seasons 6 & 7 include production information missing from 1-5. This should be standardized and most likely in favor of adding info to Seasons 1-5 (for instance that first few episodes of Season 3 was filmed right after Season 2 owing to Poehler's pregnancy).
• On the whole, though, Seasons 6 & 7 could use some attention as the overall summary quality isn't as strong as most of the previous seasons.

Production

• As a personal preference (e.g. not strictly necessary for GA passage) I think not mentioning Duke Silver at all on the page does Ron a disservice
• The crew subsection needs some revamping. Again suggest The Office as a model for how to weave information together. Much of this is just a list of names and episodes.
• More concretely, would suggest leading the crew section with the sentence that starts The series was created by

Cast & Crew

• If going in list format like this, the prose for each character should be much shorter (see 30 Rock#Cast and characters. Alternatively a more prose based approach can be taken like in The Office
• The whole guest star section needs major pruning
• There is next to no information about casting. This is necessary information to satisfy GA criteria 3a

Sources

• Please check sourcing and numbers presented in the ratings table. I don't think the ratings source for Season 1 is a good one as best I can tell that's an ABC sponsored website. I had trouble verifying the data for a couple other seasons with sources provided.
• There should be no citation needed tags. There are currently 2.

Discussion

I don't normally do TV GA reviews but for one of my all-time favorite shows how could I resist? My process will be to read through the page once, followed by a detailed read posting suggestions as I go. I hope to start this in the next couple of days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Enjoy the article. MyNameIsASDF (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy ping of Hunter Kahn because the nominator, MyNameIsASDF is not a major contributor as is preferred in the GA instructions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Review is finished through crew subsection. Would encourage efforts start on those sections as there's quite a bit there already and more to come for remaining pieces or respond why a particular suggestion shouldn't be done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@MyNameIsASDF: There are some fairly substantial changes needed to satisfy GA criteria. I have not seriously embarked on source review because of the rewrites that will be necessary in the parts that are covered above. As a fan, I want for this to pass GA. As a reviewer I'm going to place this on hold for a week or until work has begun to address the existing comments. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the criteria on the article. Unfortunately, I just haven't had the time to focus on editing this one. My schedule's been hectic and the free time I've had I spent on editing other articles, I forgot about the ones I nominated. If you could find someone else with more experience to carry out these edits, that would be great. I don't want this article to fail. Thanks for reminding me. Sorry about the inconvenience. Cheers, MyNameIsASDF (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@MyNameIsASDF: Thanks for the response. I understand about not having enough time. I'm going to go ahead and fail the review for now. I too would like to see this get to GA status so as you or other editors have time there's a chance to address some of the points raised above which will put it in a stronger position for a future review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)