Talk:The Stakeout (Parks and Recreation)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: —97198 (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on the article. It's almost ready to be promoted, but there are a few problems that need fixing first:
- Spelling: "househld" -> "household" (in lead)
- Fixed. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- File:Parks and recreation the stakeout.jpg isn't low resolution like it should be under fair use, so it needs to be scaled down. Generally, a rule of thumb for "low resolution" is that images shouldn't be over 300 pixels in width or height, or even much bigger than they appear in the article.
- Dropped the resolution. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- The plot summary is much too long. MOS:TV suggests that it should be between 200 and 500 words, and if I'm correct in assuming this is a 30-minute episode, the word count should be at the lower end of the scale, i.e. more like 200 or 300 words.
- I've shortened it to around 320 words, which is obviously well within the 200-500 demanded by MOS:TV, but not quite within 200-300. I'm hoping this will be acceptable to you. If not, I guess I can cut references to Chris Pratt's character altogether, but I'd rather not, and I don't think the article would be bettered for it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- The reference to his Haverford and Obama's name - "his Haverford"?
- Fixed. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Tom pretends to know the names of all the plants in a community garden and assigned them all fake names - stick with present tense, change to "assigns"
- Done. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is http://cultural-learnings.com/2009/09/25/parks-and-recreation-the-stakeout/ a reliable source?
- Well, it's a blog, so I guess we'd have to determine it on a case-by-case basis. Since it's only being used for one cultural reference, I thought it would be considered acceptable. However, if you don't think it should be used, I'm willing to cut that bit from the article if it will hold up the GA. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- File:Arrest of Henry Louis Gates.jpg is a non-free image and doesn't have a fair use rationale for this article. I'm not sure the reference to Gates would justify the image use.
- I've added a fair use rationale for this episode. Let me know if it's sufficient. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like Alan Sepinwall is getting undue weight compared to the other critics mentioned. I understand that you're giving his explanation of the ratings, but maybe omit the last sentence about Plaza/Offerman (considering that Robert Kuang says the same thing later).
- Ok. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- "really knew each other" (and) had lives outside of Leslie's immediate orbit" - extra quotation mark in the middle, and the inserted "and" should be in square brackets
- Fixed both. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- "actually takes some surprising turns (proving) they are more than a one-trick-pony bunch" - "proving" in square brackets
- Fixed. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll put the article on hold for seven days so that the above issues can be addressed, and I'll look over the plot summary's prose once the section has been shortened a bit. Good luck, —97198 (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- All the changes look good. The plot length is definitely fine now (200 to 300 was just a suggestion) and I made one small grammar fix. The Gates image is a bit borderline, but the rationale for fair use is pretty strong so that's fine. I know the blog isn't being used to support anything really controversial, but considering that the article really won't suffer if it's gone, I think the sentence can just be removed. I trust you to do that (if you agree), so I'll go ahead and promote the article. Well done! —97198 (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)