This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Woogee (talk | contribs) at 19:42, 23 February 2010 (→Pilot (Parks and Recreation): support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:42, 23 February 2010 by Woogee (talk | contribs) (→Pilot (Parks and Recreation): support)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Pilot (Parks and Recreation)
Pilot (Parks and Recreation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 06:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
| Toolbox |
|---|
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! — Hunter Kahn 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. — Hunter Kahn 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. — Hunter Kahn 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... — Hunter Kahn 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! — Hunter Kahn 18:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- All good, actually. I've struck the comment. The Flash 19:20, 15 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! — Hunter Kahn 18:36, 15 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)
- 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... — Hunter Kahn 00:58, 14 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. — Hunter Kahn 21:03, 13 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. — Hunter Kahn 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)
- Good job, Hunter, I withdraw my objections. Woogee (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Woogee (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)