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


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

The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 1:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC).

Parks and Recreation (season 1)

 * Notified: WP Television Episode coverage, ‎WP Television, ‎ WP Comedy, Hunter Kahn, no other active unblocked significant contributors

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its previous FAR. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note, reviewed the images, so they should be good.  I promoted this article, so will not be reviewing.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good as in the sock didn't review the images, but not good in that it was literally 8 years ago... Anyway, sure, re-reviewed, they're fine. -- Pres N  01:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment An obvious, and significant, deficiency with this article is that the 'reception' section only presents assessments written at the time this series was first broadcast. No use is made of sources looking back at this series at a later date, including after Parks and Recreation finished up. As I understand it, the general view is that this was the worst series in the show's run, and the show was only successful after a lot of changes were made. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was the primary author of this article when it was brought to FA review. I will look into some additional sources to add to address this, but I likely won't be able to until after the holiday. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  20:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took a bit longer than I expected NickD, but I've added some new information about reviews of the first season following the run of the show (from 2015 onward), in response to your comment. In doing so I also found an additional source and added some additional facts elsewhere in the article. Let me know if you think any changes or further improvements are needed! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  20:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Those changes look very good - thanks. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * do you think the article is within FA status? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This was my only concern after a light read of the article. As no-one else has raised concerns, I'd suggest this could be closed. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, as another comment the 'cast' section is currently unreferenced. I imagine that this can be quickly fixed using IMDB or similar, so it's not a reason to move to a discussion of delisting. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - one of the annoying things about being coordinator is it takes me out of fixing things a bit. So if someone can do this then I can close maybe....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize this until now but the cast section has been changed since the FA review. It used to be a straight narrative with sources which you can find here, but it appears it has since been changed to a list format without sources. I can either restore it to the way it originally was, or I can use some of the sources that were removed and add them to the existing list. Do you have a thought or preference on this? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The straight narrative is nice actually, so that'd be fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The narrative looks good and reads well, and is a good fit for a FA. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.