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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:40, 8 March 2010 [1].

Pilot (Parks and Recreation)[edit]

Pilot (Parks and Recreation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 06:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Comments. No dab links, external links fine, alt text present and good (I made a small correction). Ucucha 13:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments likely to come, but that rationale is incredibly weak. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 20:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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 I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

  • I think I've addressed these items as well. Let me know if any of them still need work. — Hunter Kahn 06:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lead sentence would be good for the Cultural references section. Something like "There are a number of references..." or whatever.

Actually what would be best is to organize the cultural references by theme. A paragraph on politics, a para on sports, and a para of the rest.

"due to his lack of respect for her." - I thought Tom liked her? Or maybe that's just later on in the show?

  • Tom seems to have less respect for her in the pilot than in subsequent episodes. However, in order to make it less confusing, I changed it to "as a joke", which is also true and in keeping with the source material. — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"NBC did not have a finished episode to broadcast" - I don't think "broadcast" is the correct word.

"some of the parts were not even cast yet, and the series did not yet have a name " - "even", "yet" not needed

"not ready for prime time"[2] - This sounds a little weird, because that's what they used to call the cast of SNL. I looked for it in the ref to make sure that wasn't what they were talking about, but didn't find it.

  • I'm not sure if I'm understanding the problem here, but the wording "not ready for prime time" was just my own wording. It's not a direct quote from the source, although I think the information in the source backs up the claim. I've added another source to further back it up, although I'm perfectly willing to change the "not ready for prime time" wording if it's still a problem. — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"according to Nielsen ratings" - Correct grammar is "according to Nielsen" or "according to Nielsen Media Research"

  • Replaced with the latter option. — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"although it lacked many laugh out loud moments." - Sounds funny. Go with "although it had few laugh out loud moments."

Maybe link "contrapuntal" to it's wiktionary page? It's a new word to me, anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"April explains she got assigned to the parks and recreation because" - parks and rec dept.?

Support - I know you'll take care of the above comments. Above nitpicks aside, I think this is the best prose I've seen you produce. Keep it up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The Plot section is unsourced. Woogee (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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." — Hunter Kahn 05:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I still maintain Wikipedia guidelines do not require sources for a plot summary, I have added some, as per my discussion with this reviewer here and here. — Hunter Kahn 06:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, Hunter, I withdraw my objections. Woogee (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Woogee (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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).
      • I've dropped them all. — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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.
      • Sorry, I'm a bit unclear on what you are asking me to do here. Could you make one of the fixes yourself and then direct me to it in the article-history so I'll know what needs to be done? After that, I'll fix the others myself. — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I saw your edit in the history and I believe I understand now. I've fixed the rest of the refs. Let me know if I missed any. — Hunter Kahn 08:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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.
      • For what it's worth, I agree. I wouldn't (and haven't) use Cinema Blend in this article except for the plot summary. — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes Franklin Avenue reliable? (Also, as it's a web source, we don't italicise IIRC).
      • I've dropped this source from the article. In two out of three cases it was only citing information that was cited by other sources anyway. — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes Office Tally reliable? (Same again with the italics.)
      • Office Tally is 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... — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I don't think you should remove it yet; your argument is a reasonable one. But I would recommend that subsequent reviewers explicitly consider it before supporting. Steve T • C 08:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 25 returns empty.
      • I've had trouble finding a replacement URL, but since the sentence it's citing already has another citation as well, I've simply dropped the source with the missing link altogether. — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 ([3]; [4]). Still, it wouldn't hurt for subsequent reviewers to share their thoughts to get consensus.
      • Actually, it appears that using the work field in Cite Web italicizes the website name automatically, but the publisher one does not. I switched to publisher for this reason. And I'd like to throw in my two cents that "TV by the Numbers" should be considered a reliable source, for the reason cited above. It's easily one of the best resources available for Nielsen rating information. — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's all the weather! Best, Steve T • C 22:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck some; those I left unstruck are there just to let subsequent reviewers know they should consider them when reviewing. All the best, Steve T • C 08:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I thought this was written pretty well, and I think the sources are fine. However, I think that it's a little too stuffed with details.
  • A few of the details in the plot section seem almost trivial, which broke the flow a bit for me. In particular, is it important that we know about Leslie and Mark's previous sexual encounter, or about Ann's boyfriend, who seems to play little role in the plot? Do we need to know about them getting drunk at the celebration party?
    • I'd be willing to do some additional tightening, of course, but a few of the examples you point out I would argue are important to include, not so much for the plot of this episode per se, but because they set up ongoing storylines that will continue for the rest of the season. Leslie and Mark's previously sexual encounter is the source of romantic tension between the two for the rest of the season, which sort of culminates in the last episode ("Rock Show"). Likewise, the whole thing about Ann's boyfriend is a recurring thing for the entire first season and much of the second season. I think you're right about the drunken celebration party, though, so I've removed that. Let me know if you're OK with leaving the other stuff in... — Hunter Kahn 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never seen the show so didn't know that those details might be important later. I'll take your word for it. Karanacs (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information on what about Amy Poehler helped them formulate the series concept?
    • None that I've found, unfortunately, but I'd be more than happy to add it in if anything is found. — Hunter Kahn 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the cultural references section necessary? The last paragraph seems essentially trivia, and I think the second paragraph is pretty trivial too. Is it possible to expand on the sports and political themes? If so, I'd move that into development, otherwise I think I'd ditch the whole section.
    • Well, cultural references sections are pretty standard in television episode articles, but in fairness they are sometimes the subject of discussion because they can border on trivia. My position generally is that they are acceptable as long as their are thoroughly cited by reliable sources. (I'm pretty vehement in my removal of unsourced WP:OR from these kind of sections.) Obviously, I'd rather keep it as is. But if you like, I could move the first two paragraphs (since they are connected by common themes: politics and sports) and move them to the "Writing" section, then axe the rest of the section. Let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see the value of much of the last paragraph of that section. There's no context or analysis given (and I doubt much exists for most of it), and to me it seems more like name-dropping. The first two paragraphs at least have a common theme. Which reminds me - are there any sources linking Poehler's SNL stint as Hillary Clinton to any of the political references here? Karanacs (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As per your comments, I moved the first two paragraphs to "Writing" and dropped everything else. As far as references to Poehler's SNL stint as Hillary, there have been passing references to it in reviews and stuff, but nothing I've found relevant to this particular episode. — Hunter Kahn 17:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the details of each deleted scene that is included in the DVD release? Is that standard for other tv episode articles?
    • You're probably right. I dropped them. — Hunter Kahn 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well-done. Karanacs (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not as good as the next nomination, "American Beauty". But still, it will be worth a support with a bit of cleaning up. I wouldn't oppose promotion, even now. Here are random issues.

  • Linking: Van Nuys already has a link to "Los Angeles", so I've removed the "chain" link to LA in this article. In any case, LA, NYC, Washington DC, etc., rarely need linking, IMO. Why is "Australia" linked? Please see WP:OVERLINK.
    • I've dropped Australia. Let me know if there are any other overlink issues. — Hunter Kahn 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo "dirctorial"
  • "During filming, guest star Chris Pratt said Poehler went out of her way to welcome him, and that her polite behavior put him at ease during filming." Something left out? "Went out of her way" is a little colloquial and subjective; any chance of putting it within quote-marks?
  • "in order for"—two words are redundant.
  • "At the time, some of the parts were not cast, and the series did not yet have a name and was known as The Untitled Amy Poehler Project or TUAPP." Do we need the first three words, given the previous sentence? (Unsure.) Two "nots". Just a wild hunch: "; some of the parts were not yet cast, and without a a finalized title, the series was known as The Untitled Amy Poehler Project, or TUAPP."
  • fit for a novel. ... Poehler and Jones have a nice (please see MoS on ellipsis points. I think here, it should be "novel.... "
  • At the end: "worked for ... worked into". Jostling.
    • I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the part about Obama at the end? Because if so, I think "worked for" is correct... — Hunter Kahn 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the italicisation of the newspaper titles. Why doesn't everyone do this?
  • Caption for Amy Poehler: I think it's a bit forced; could that info be in the main text? The caption is now unnecessarily long, too.
    • I shortened it.
  • Lead pic is a let-down, but I guess if that's all ya got, keep it. Tony (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pilot_(Parks_and_Recreation)/archive1&oldid=1136458107"