Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parks and Recreation (season 1)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:29, 6 February 2010.

Parks and Recreation (season 1)

 * Nominator(s): —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on Parks and Recreation-related articles for months now, and I believe this article is a comprehensive as can be. This article has already passed GAN and gone through a PR, and it's the main article of a currently ongoing GT nom that appears to have wide support. I think it's ready for featured status. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Two images. Alt text good.
 * Comment I noticed that several sections contain long lists of citations, when referring to "many critics", or "several [things]". Would it not perhaps be tidier—and a little more useful—to create a notes section in the references, and add a short quote from each critic into that notes section, together with a citation?  That way, the reader can see briefly what each critic says, and they also don't have to look at a line of 5 citations interrupting the prose as instead of [1][2][5][22] you'd just have [nb1]?  Just an idea. Parrot of Doom 12:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not opposed to that, but I've never done that before. I wonder if you wouldn't mind doing one of these so I can see what it looks like? Then I'll do the rest? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Dick Turpin. The code for each [nb] is  .  You can put all your individual quotes inside those tag brackets, together with each citation.  Then, to get them to appear in their own references section, just use  wherever in the article you want them to appear (usually near the standard list of sources). .  Basically those tag brackets mean that anything inside them, references, text, the lot - gets moved down into the footnotes section. Parrot of Doom 15:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I took a shot at this. It seems like a good idea to me, but I'm still not sure I did it right. Specifically, I'm not sure if I'm going into too much detail in the footnote or not. I tried it on one first, so please let me know what you think. If this is correct, I'll add it for other areas with multiple cite tags. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Spot on. Parrot of Doom 21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I will finish the rest either tonight or tomorrow. Alright, I've added one everywhere that I thought it was necessary. If I've missed one that you feel should be added, let me know and I'll do it straight away. And thanks for this guidance; it was educational for me! :) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Parks and recreation season 1 dvd cover.jpg: Season 1 DVD boxset cover (fair use), used as main infobox image.
 * Usage: Good, standard.
 * Rationale: Good. Though the rationale for any image illustrating people would ideally identify them.


 * File:Parks and recreation season 1 cast.jpg: Cast shot (fair use), used in main text.
 * Usage: Borderline. This image seems as if it would be more appropriate to the article on the series, unless there were substantial cast changes between seasons 1 and 2 (it appears there were not). The substantial overlap between this image and the infobox image raises NFCC 3a concerns ("Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information"). We currently have two FAs devoted to individual seasons of TV series: Supernatural (season 1) and Smallville (season 1). They both include main text images that are much more specific to the particular season in question, and I believe, of greater benefit to readers.
 * Rationale: Decent, but rationales (or lead summary descriptions) for stills of people must identify them when possible. DCGeist (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the names of the cast members to the lead summary description. You've identified this second image as borderline. Do you feel the image is problematic enough to prevent you from supporting the FAC? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In most cases—and in this one—when I provide a media review, I don't go further to support or oppose the nomination itself, which I believe requires a comprehensive assessment. The media review is provided as a service to you, the nominator, and to the FA delegates. When I identify a problem, I try to be as detailed and explanatory as possible. If you're asking me if I think that the issue I've identified would be a FAC-killer if it was the single, solitary question mark in the article—no, I don't think it would be. On the other hand, as I tried to make clear, there is room for improvement here (and in the main series article, where—again—I believe this image would be more appropriately placed for the overlapping reasons of both informational value and fair use policy).—DCGeist (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the review. I think you've brought up some good points here, so I've removed the image from this article and moved it to the main Parks and Recreation article (where I will later address some of the other rationale concerns you've raised). I've replaced it in this season 1 article with an image of Amy Poehler, for which a free license is available. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  01:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note, in the future, please do not put up a second nomination until your first has garnered sufficient support. Since both FACs are well underway now, I'll let this run, but the FAC page is seriously backlogged, so multiple noms are a hindrance.  Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, won't happen again. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment
 * The plot summaries need to be heavily expanded. Per MOSTV, they should be ~100-200 words, and should give the episode's resolution. Ω  pho  is  18:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've never done a season article before, so I didn't know the MOSTV item regarding the summaries. I was using articles like The Office (U.S. TV series) season 2 as more of a guide. I will work on expanding the plot summaries this weekend! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've expanded them. I tried to keep them on the short side, but they are all slightly over 100 words, and they all have the episode's resolution. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the pilot episode, it would be good to list why she is trying to help. If I remember correctly, the nurse's boyfriend fell into the pit, and his injury is a plot element throughout the season.
 * For the second episode, what are some of Tom's questionable tactics? Ω  pho  is  01:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The third episode implies that Leslie got in trouble for opening the basket, but the article for the episode says she is in trouble because April was drinking underage. Ω  pho  is  01:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the information to address these questions. I didn't include the April bit under "Boys' Club" at first because I thought it was cumbersome to explain, but let me know if it works. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  05:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I made some minor fixes. Ω  pho  is  17:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This is very close—it's comprehensive, well sourced, and well structured—but I'm seeing some problems with the prose. I copyedited the lede, but it looks like there are issues throughout. Just from the first couple of episode summaries, for instance: The sort of things I'm seeing are by no means major, but it looks like this could use one more pass from a good copyeditor.—DCGeist (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Source comments What makes this reliable? Comment The info flow seems a bit to me. I would say go for a logical Production-Crew-Cast-Episodes-Reception-DVD. Reads better, although you might have to sort out the introductory sentences in each section. RB88 (T) 00:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Ann Perkins (Rashida Jones) attends a town meeting asking for a construction pit to be filled in". It sounds like the town meeting is doing the "asking". You mean "to ask that a construction pit be filled in", right?
 * "In order to create support for her park project and gain members for an upcoming town meeting". Confusing. Do you mean something like "enroll new members to attend an upcoming town meeting"?
 * "However, although supporters of the park do not attend, opponents to the proposal come out in large numbers to voice their disapproval". Problems with verbosity and grammar here. Something like this: "However, the park's supporters do not attend and opponents of the proposal turn out in large numbers to voice their disapproval".
 * I've fixed the specific items you cited. However, I think it's very important to note that this article has already gone through a formal peer review focused on grammatical issues. The examples you provided were very recently added by me in response to an above request in this FAC that the episode summaries be expanded. Since those were so recently added, they were not part of the PR, so citing these prose problems are not indicative of the grammar in the rest of the article. That being said, I'm not saying this article couldn't do with another copy editing pass, but since we've had a PR and a GAN review, I'm very confident any prose remaining can be addressed within this FAC review, and won't require a separate WP:Peer Review. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  02:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. Yes, the rest of the article looks stronger prose-wise, but I'm still catching obvious stuff like this, in a quotebox: "I love the pace of the show. Since I started doing that single-camera stuff, it takes forever. But (on Parks and Recreation) and you guys just light and we go. It's so much fun." That simply doesn't make sense. (And if the parenthetical clause is an editorial interpolation, it should be in square brackets.) Please revisit the original quotation and make this work.—DCGeist (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed the quote. And please don't get me wrong, I'm sure another copy edit would be appropriate, and I'm more than willing to address anything that arises from it. I'm just hopeful it's not so insurmountable that we can't handle it here in the FAC. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.officetally.com/parks-and-recreation-set-visit/2
 * I sorted out the italics on non-print publishers. Make sure they're not in italics in the main text as well.
 * Thanks for addressing the italics issue. As far as the OfficeTally source, it's a fansite, but I have argued in the past that it can be considered a reliable source for certain bits of information because the person who runs the site (Jennie Tan) has been running the site so long and so efficiently that she has been given an unprecedented amount of access to the producers and to show information, to the extent that she has been given behind-the-scenes access to The Office and Parks and Recreation sets. I've made this argument at GAs where her site has been accepted as a reliable source, such as New Boss, Two Weeks and Company Picnic. Additionally, I've only used her as a source in this article for one piece of information (that the pit was guarded 24 hours a day) where I could not find another source to replace it. But, with all that being said, if you still feel it should be removed as a source, I'll remove it... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  02:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FA directives are much tougher than GA. I would still say remove it as it is a fansite. RB88 (T) 13:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear from other editors their thoughts and whether they agree before I make such a major structural reorganizing. I'm not opposed to what you're saying, and I'll certainly do it if the consensus goes that way, but I personally like the current structure, which is similar to the FA article Smallville (season 1). —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine if you feel that way, but if we waited for consensus on every bullet point a reviewer says we would never get anything done. RB88 (T) 13:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * lol I agree with that, but this is a major structural change, not simply a grammatical item or source question, so I just want to give it a little time. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.