Wikipedia:Peer review/Parks and Recreation/archive1

Parks and Recreation

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to bring it to WP:FAC and was hoping for a thorough copy edit first. I've been following this show for two years and have worked all the individual season and episode articles to GA, and now I'm hoping the series article itself is nearly ready for FA. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 19:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I can't, I'm afraid, offer a full copyedit, though I have tweaked the prose here and there. I do have a few observations that I hope will help you to improve the article which, I believe, is in pretty good shape.

• Terminology: I see this as the parent for various daughter articles dealing with individual series etc, yet these subarticles are referred to in each case as the "main" article. I suggest you alter the templates to ead, for example:
  Further information: [[:Parks and Recreation (season 1)]]
• We should be told, in each season summary, how many episodes the series contained and the length of the episodes
• Images - Fair use rationales: The group cast pic is worth a punt, but as written the rationale does not read very convincingly. Can it be strengthened?
• Footnotes: these are intended as a means of including brief incidental information without interrupting the flow of the main text. Your footnotes are mini-essays, typically 120–150 words long, which I believe is excessive. If the information is important it ought to be in the text. If it is incidental, you need to consider whether you need to include it at all, and whethet it can be drastically summarised.
• A "construction pit", to British readers, suggests a trench or hole in the ground. I imagine that it suggests something different to American readers, but we Brits (the show is not aired over here) will wonder how a hole can become a park. Is there any form of wording whereby this misunderstanding might be overcome?
• The word "horrible" is a not really encyclopaedic as the description of a person or character.
• The British TV series The Office was created by Gervais and Stephen Merchant
• The word "starting" is overused throughout the article. In some instances it is redundant, e.g. "Deedle-Dee Productions and Universal Media Studios produced Parks and Recreation starting with the first season,[25] and the production companies Fremulon and 3 Arts Entertainment also became involved with the show starting with the second season" could easily become "Deedle-Dee Productions and Universal Media Studios produced the first season of Parks and Recreation,[25] and were joined by the production companies Fremulon and 3 Arts Entertainment for the second and third seasons". Look for other examples of repetitive wording and see if you can adjust.
• Some more general comments
  • Try to avoid overlong sentences such as "Toward the end of production on the second season, Poehler became pregnant again and the producers of the show were forced to go into production on season three early and film an additional six episodes to accommodate not only Poehler's pregnancy, but also a projected September 2010 air date". Two "ands", and far too much information for a single sentence.
  • I thought parts of the article, in particular the "Writing" and "Filming" sections, were rather overdetailed, and could be shortened without detriment to the comprehensiveness of the article.
  • Other parts of the article have a very messy appearance due to an over-prevalence of links and citations. I am thinking particularly of the final paragraph of the Cast section. Is it really necessary to name every guest artist who has appeared in the show? Why not just a few of the (better-known) names as examples? The subarticle on the cast is surely the place for this level of detail.
  • The word "several" means a small number, probably four or five at most. In the second paragraph of the "Reviews" section (which would probbly be better named as "Critical reception") you have: "...with several publications declaring it among the best shows of 2009 including..." followed by 13 titles. 13 is not "several". Again, why do you need such a long list? Give a few examples.
  • I can't make sense of the caption for the Pawnee town hall picture

I don't have any more time, but I hope you will find thes suggestions helpful in your quest for FA status. As I am not able to watch individual PR pages, please contact my talkpage if you wish to raise any issues with me. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)