Wikipedia:Peer review/Parks and Recreation (season 1)/archive1

Parks and Recreation (season 1) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm nominating this because it's already been through the GAN process, and I'd like to pursue an FAC for it. I'm pretty sure it's as comprehensive as can be, I don't think I've left any source unturned, but I'm open and anxious for any feedback on prose issues or any way this could be further improved before I nominate it for FA. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 01:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you're pursuing this for FAC, best start would be to add ALT text, a must as FACs. The Flash ^{talk} 03:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right you are. I added it, but struggled with the alt text in this article a bit, so feel free to modify it or make any suggestions. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nah, it all looks fine. Thanks. The Flash ^{talk} 04:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- What makes the following reliable sources?
  - http://franklinavenue.blogspot.com/2009/04/story-behind-that-parks-and-recreation.html (Note you've repeated this ref, once at 39 and once at 46..might combine if it's reliable)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I removed the source; the info was repeated by the other sources anyway. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This reads well, seems comprehensive, and has few flaws that I can detect. I have just a small number of suggestions:

Lead

The premiere episode was watched by 6.77 million overall households, but declined almost every week in the Nielsen Ratings, ending with a season-low 4.25 million-household viewership during its finale episode, "Rock Show". - The extended adjective string might be a bit too much. Suggestion: "The premiere episode was watched by 6.77 million households but declined almost every week in the Nielsen Ratings. The show ended with a season-low viewership of 4.25 million households during its finale episode, "Rock Show".
"The first season received generally mixed to negative reviews, with several commentators finding it too similar to The Office." - "With doesn't make a very good conjunction. Often sentences with "with" clauses like this one can be slightly improved by re-casting. Suggestion: "The first season received generally mixed to negative reviews; several commentators found it too similar to The Office." Or, "Commentators, several of whom found the show too similar to The Office, gave the first season generally mixed to negative reviews." Two similar sentences start the "Crew" section and might be slightly improved by re-casting.

Writing

"Mark asked Ron to green-light the park" - Make greenlight one word and wikilink?
"At the time that the season concluded, the writers had not decided what would happen between the developing romantic plotlines between Leslie and Mark, or Mark and Ann." - Replace the first "between" with "with"?

Filming

"Parks and Recreation faced early production delays because Amy Poehler... " - Here and a few places elsewhere, the full name, Amy Poehler, is being used rather than just the last name, Poehler. Usually (unless two people have the same last name, for example) in Wikipedia articles the full name is used only on first reference, and the last name suffices on subsequent uses. In the reverse of this pattern, you are using only the first name on subsequent references for fictitious characters like Mark and Ron. I think that's helpful in that it makes it easier to distinguish between actors and the characters they play, but perhaps the patterns should be utterly consistent; i.e., Leslie (fictitious character) but Poehler (live person). The article includes a large number of unfamiliar names, and it's fairly easy to get confused, especially in the early sections. Just a suggestion.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Finetooth! — Hun ter Ka hn 04:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]