Talk:Pilot (Parks and Recreation)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- In the Production section, "It was shown in a time slot between two fifth season episodes of Daniels' popular series The Office", you might want to remove "popular", per here. Do the same in the Reception section. Same section, "According to a report that was leaked to the television journalist Nikki Finke", remove "the", it doesn't flow well with the sentence. In the Cultural references section, this ---> "A complaining member of the public at a parks meeting", reads very odd.
- Check.
- In the Production section, "It was shown in a time slot between two fifth season episodes of Daniels' popular series The Office", you might want to remove "popular", per here. Do the same in the Reception section. Same section, "According to a report that was leaked to the television journalist Nikki Finke", remove "the", it doesn't flow well with the sentence. In the Cultural references section, this ---> "A complaining member of the public at a parks meeting", reads very odd.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Throughout the article, link "Paul Schneider" and "The Office" to their correspondence articles. In the Production section, you might want to change the title of "The Michaels Scott Paper Company" link. Do the same in the Reception section. In the Reception section, italicize "Kath & Kim", since it is a television show. Same section, I'm mixed with this; I believe "The Office" should be italicized, even though it links back to "Michael Scott". I'm not sure.
- Check.
- Throughout the article, link "Paul Schneider" and "The Office" to their correspondence articles. In the Production section, you might want to change the title of "The Michaels Scott Paper Company" link. Do the same in the Reception section. In the Reception section, italicize "Kath & Kim", since it is a television show. Same section, I'm mixed with this; I believe "The Office" should be italicized, even though it links back to "Michael Scott". I'm not sure.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- In the Reception section, "Robert Bianco said the episode was not funny, and way in which the scripts and supporting cast ridicule and ignore the Leslie character leaves a "sour whiff of gratuitous cruelty", the source should be mentioned after the quote has concluded, per here. Also, Reference 18 is missing Publisher info.
- Check.
- In the Reception section, "Robert Bianco said the episode was not funny, and way in which the scripts and supporting cast ridicule and ignore the Leslie character leaves a "sour whiff of gratuitous cruelty", the source should be mentioned after the quote has concluded, per here. Also, Reference 18 is missing Publisher info.
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think I got them all. I didn't find any bad links for The Office, but otherwise I think I got everything. Let me know if I missed anything, or feel free to fix it yourself if you like. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed two minor things. Overall, everything checks out. Thank you to Hunter K. for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)