Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Pilot (Parks and Recreation)/archive1: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:42, 23 February 2010 editWoogee (talk \| contribs)6,057 edits →Pilot (Parks and Recreation): support← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:14, 23 February 2010 edit undoSteve (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users18,235 edits →Pilot (Parks and Recreation): source checkNext edit →
Line 54:		Line 54:
	:Good job, Hunter, I withdraw my objections. ] (]) 07:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)		:Good job, Hunter, I withdraw my objections. ] (]) 07:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
	::'''Support'''. ] (]) 19:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)		::'''Support'''. ] (]) 19:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

			*'''Source comments'''. Aside from the one mentioned below, all external links check out with the tool. Some minor formatting issues aside, ''most'' of what you've used reads reliable, but questions about some of them follow the formatting niggles:
			**Inconsistent use of <code>location=</code> parameter. Some newspaper refs use it (at time of writing: 10; 20; 42; 45), others don't, even among those cited to the same publication. Best practice would be to use it for all, or none (I'd choose the latter in this case).
			**Quotes within quotes are usually rendered double-single ({{"'}}), whereas you've gone with double-double ("") for some of the reference titles (3; 4; 5; 6; 17; 18; 27; 37; 40; 42). Don't worry about misrepresenting to even this small a degree, as it looks like the original sources all use singles anyway.
			**Misplaced quotation marks in titles of refs 30; 36; (they don't appear in the sources).
			**You've used curly quotes instead of straight quotes in title of ref 9; stay consistent with the style of your article.
			**Not too sure about as a reliable source (ref 7), as it's a bit of a gossip site known for repeating anonymous rumours and the like. However, in this case it's backing up the plot summary, which is usually cited to the primary source (the episode) anyway, so my feeling is to let it through as a convenience link. I suggest that subsequent reviewers comment on this one to achieve consensus.
			**What makes reliable? (Also, as it's a web source, we don't italicise IIRC).
			**What makes reliable? (Same again with the italics.)
			** returns empty.
			**Ref 31 is a web source, so don't italicise. You might as well get rid of the <code>publisher=</code> field on this one, as it's the same as what you've got in <code>work=</code>. Even though it's self-pub, I'd lean reliable on "TV by the Numbers" because it's extensively cited by other, ''bona fide'' reliable, publications (; ). Still, it wouldn't hurt for subsequent reviewers to share their thoughts to get consensus.
			*And that's all the weather! Best, ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 22:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:14, 23 February 2010

Pilot (Parks and Recreation)

Nominator(s): — Hun ter Ka hn 06:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Pilot (Parks and Recreation)/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the FA criteria. It is well-written, well-sourced and comprehensive. This article has long been listed as a good article, and is part of the Parks and Recreation (season 1) good topic that passed last month]]. It has also undergone a peer review where I specifically asked for prose-related feedback in anticipation of this FA nomination, but was told there were only minor issues that needed addressing. I believe it is now ready, but am of course willing to address any and all issues that arise during the review. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 06:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that although I am participating in the Wikicup, this article is not a Wikicup nomination, as all the substantial work was done prior to 2010. — Hun ter Ka hn 06:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments. No dab links, external links fine, alt text present and good (I made a small correction). Ucucha 13:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

~~More comments likely to come, but that rationale is incredibly weak. The Flash 20:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)~~
- Oh, right, the infobox image. I meant to work on that before I nominated it for FAC, but I forgot. I've tried to strengthen it a bit, but frankly, if in this review we find it's still lacking and that a suitable episode image cannot be found, I'm willing to drop the image altogether. Let me know what you think. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  - Question: Would perhaps an image from this episode of the construction pit serve this article better than the current infobox image? Right now the pit is explained in the prose, but it would probably be much more educational to the reader to be able to actually see what the pit looks like and how large it is, which I could explain in the fair use rationale? Let me know what you think, and if there's a general agreement, I'll try to rent again or buy the DVD in the next few days so I can do a screengrab... — Hun ter Ka hn 00:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    - That would actually be perfect. I've been following the Park articles for some time and (having only seen one episode, "Hunting Trip," which did not feature the pit) I'm unsure exactly what it looks like or what its purpose is. An image of it would be very helpful and much more suiting then the current. :) The Flash 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
      - OK, I've replaced the picture and included a fair use rationale on the image's page. I agree, I think this image is much more educational than the old one; let me know if the rationale needs more work, as I think I could actually add much more to it if need be. Also, since Amy Poehler is no longer illustrated in the infobox image, I thought it made much more sense to use the image of her instead of Rashida Jones in the body of the article, so I swapped them out. Let me know what you think! — Hun ter Ka hn 18:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
        All good, actually. I've struck the comment. The Flash 19:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Support. Having conducted the peer review, I support this nomination, as I found the article to be of high quality. -- James26 (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I just watched the first nine episodes of season 2 last night. I love this show. It keeps getting better.

"The episode introduced the protagonist" - Should it be introduces?

"Although it received less ratings" - "lower"?

"impossible due to logistics and bureaucratic red tape" - I think it should be "the logistics", maybe wikilink red tape.

"for the website" - What website? It's kind of abrupt.

"but eventually agrees to consider it just to get Leslie to leave his office" - "just" is a bit informal.

More later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Peregrine. I've responded to all your above comments, but if you feel anything is still outstanding from them, let me know. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"The original script portrayed Leslie and Mark as slightly less likable characters. Originally" - Two "original"s too close together.

"Schur encouraged Ansari to continue, and suggested the line in which Ansari suggests" - Two "suggest"s too close together.

"such as the scenes of Ann and Andy talking on Ann's couch after Leslie fell into the pit and injured herself." - Should it be scene or scenes. Can't remember the episode well enough.

"Michael Schur directed the pilot episode, marking his directorial debut." - Maybe "Michael Schur made his dirctorial debut with the the pilot episode."

"The original cut of the pilot episode was 48 minutes long, and had to be cut" - Two "cut"s, then a third and fourth in the next two sentences.

"Daniels included this technique to distinguish Parks and Recreation from The Office." - Seems a bit repetitive what with the first sentence in that para.

"were shot at the actual Pasadena city hall building." - "actual" not needed. Also "filmed in an actual playground in Los Angeles."

"yelling "Praaaaaatt!" and welcoming him. Pratt said he was impressed by the polite behavior" - This seems weird. Yelling Praaaaaatt doesn't sound polite. Does the ref elaborate? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~. The Plot section is unsourced. Woogee (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- According to WP:MOSTV: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question." — Hun ter Ka hn 05:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  - Although I still maintain Misplaced Pages guidelines do not require sources for a plot summary, I have added some, as per my discussion with this reviewer here and here. — Hun ter Ka hn 06:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Good job, Hunter, I withdraw my objections. Woogee (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Woogee (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Source comments. Aside from the one mentioned below, all external links check out with the tool. Some minor formatting issues aside, most of what you've used reads reliable, but questions about some of them follow the formatting niggles:
- Inconsistent use of location= parameter. Some newspaper refs use it (at time of writing: 10; 20; 42; 45), others don't, even among those cited to the same publication. Best practice would be to use it for all, or none (I'd choose the latter in this case).
- Quotes within quotes are usually rendered double-single ("'), whereas you've gone with double-double ("") for some of the reference titles (3; 4; 5; 6; 17; 18; 27; 37; 40; 42). Don't worry about misrepresenting to even this small a degree, as it looks like the original sources all use singles anyway.
- Misplaced quotation marks in titles of refs 30; 36; (they don't appear in the sources).
- You've used curly quotes instead of straight quotes in title of ref 9; stay consistent with the style of your article.
- Not too sure about Cinema Blend as a reliable source (ref 7), as it's a bit of a gossip site known for repeating anonymous rumours and the like. However, in this case it's backing up the plot summary, which is usually cited to the primary source (the episode) anyway, so my feeling is to let it through as a convenience link. I suggest that subsequent reviewers comment on this one to achieve consensus.
- What makes Franklin Avenue reliable? (Also, as it's a web source, we don't italicise IIRC).
- What makes Office Tally reliable? (Same again with the italics.)
- Ref 25 returns empty.
- Ref 31 is a web source, so don't italicise. You might as well get rid of the publisher= field on this one, as it's the same as what you've got in work=. Even though it's self-pub, I'd lean reliable on "TV by the Numbers" because it's extensively cited by other, bona fide reliable, publications (; ). Still, it wouldn't hurt for subsequent reviewers to share their thoughts to get consensus.
And that's all the weather! Best, Steve 22:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)