Talk:Sweetums (Parks and Recreation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good topic candidate
Promoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 17, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Ron Swanson builds a harp in the Parks and Recreation episode "Sweetums", which was inspired by actor Nick Offerman's real-life carpentry
skills?
Current status: Good article

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sweetums (Parks and Recreation)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "EW":

  • From Pawnee Zoo: Fog, Henning (2009-09-18). ""Parks and Recreation" recap: Change we can believe in". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2009-09-22.
  • From Leslie's House: Gonzalez, Sandra (January 22, 2010). ""Parks and Recreation" recap: House party at Leslie's!". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved January 22, 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 23:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References Quibble

This is purely an academic point: I'm not sure that the first line of the culture references belongs in this section. I'm talking about the continued conflict between the library and parks staff. It seems self-referential rather than a cultural reference. I didn't delete it, but it probably belongs elsewhere in the article.Obamafan70 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is . The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arctic Night 08:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here
for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to
    reliable sources): c (OR
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy
    .
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have
    suitable captions
    )
    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

General comments

Fix these issues up and I'll happily pass this article. I can't find anything else wrong here. Arctic Night 09:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, passed. Arctic Night 11:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]