Talk:Pilot (Parks and Recreation)
Good topic candidate | Promoted | |
| February 10, 2010 | Peer review | Reviewed |
| March 8, 2010 | Featured article candidate | Promoted |
 A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 19, 2009.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a focus group report heavily critical of the "Pilot" episode of the NBC show Parks and Recreation was leaked to the media one month before the show aired? | ||
| Current status: Featured article | ||
 | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Pilot (Parks and Recreation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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
- B. It complies with the 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 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
- 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
- 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 waror content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are suitable captions:
- A. Images are
- 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)
The Office
In the article about "The Office" it says that the US series was "adapted" by Daniels. However i in this article and the summary about to go on the main page it says that he "created" the series. Isn't this a bit strong being as most people believe it was "created" in the UK? Victuallers (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
UK debut
It might be worth mentioning that season 1 has recently begun being aired in the UK, where it seems to have been generally well-received. JH (talk page) 08:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oops! I somehow failed to see that this article was specifically about the pilot episode, perhaps because it had never occurred to me that a single episode of a TV series could merit its own article. JH (talk page) 16:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)