Talk:A Parks and Recreation Special

Interview with Schur

Here, as a potential ref for information to add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Parks and Recreation Special/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 20:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Improve the non-free use rationale with this template.
• Lead summarizes the entire article so that's good.

Plot

• Under 400 words so that passes WP:TVPLOT.
• "cancelled" → "canceled" (American English)

Production

• Optional but some images would be nice.
• "Afterwards" → "Afterward" (American English)
• The writing credits for Aisha Muharrar, Matt Murray, and Jen Statsky need a source, so here's an article you can use.
• The series finale → The series finale, "One Last Ride" (WP:EASTEREGG).
• The source used used says England, so I wouldn't mention London without another reference.
• The last quote in the fourth fifth paragraph is not mentioned in this article.

I can't find the first part of the quote in the source given so it might come from two sources. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Both quotes are in that source, but I had swapped the order, which probably caused the confusion. The issue should be fixed now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Reception

• This source says the ratings were "in line with the show's final season" not the "series finale" as stated in the article.
• "3.33 million viewers with a 1.3 rating" → "3.38 million viewers with a 1.0 rating" (source used).
• Use the "cite Rotten Tomatoes" and "cite Metacritic" templates for citations instead.
  • The RT template won't work correctly for this special, and I'm not a fan of the Metacritic template because it omits quotation marks. Therefore, I've opted to keep the cite web templates for both. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• Sources are archived.
• Mark sources from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
  • As far as I can tell, only the parts of rollingstone.com associated with print articles are paywalled; this article is free to access. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: I got the paywall message on my computer so I would mark it. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Interesting. I was using private browsing, so maybe that messed with the paywall? At any rate, it's fixed now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Article is close to being passed now. There's just one small comment in #Production left. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Mark sources from Time with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark sources from Vanity Fair with "|url-access=limited".

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

@Some Dude From North Carolina: All issues should be fixed; I've left a few comments above. My apologies for not checking that the sources and article matched – I should have done a better job checking WP:V beforehand. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)