Talk:Camping (Parks and Recreation)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding a quick note to say that I will review. I'll give the article a read through now and add any points that come up below. Miyagawa (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Cultural references: Can you have a look to see if you merge a couple of sentences into one another, as at the moment it feels like its a list with the line breaks removed. The actual content itself is good, just the flow needs to be looked at.
  • Yeah, this is always a challenge, given the nature of these sections. I tried to rework it a bit, placed everything in order so that the related bits are together (mostly Tom/tent stuff in the first paragraph, Leslie stuff in the second) to make this flow better. Let me know if it needs more work. — Hunter Kahn 03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Ratings: Would it be possible to change defeated in the final sentence, perhaps to "beat" or similar - its just that defeated is quite a prominent word in the previous sentence.
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Images: Is it possible to add a low quality screencap from the episode to the infobox with a fair use rationale?
  • I had an image, but it's now up for deletion, so I just nominated the episode without a photo. Perhaps there is a better image that can be used with a fair use rationale. (I thought about maybe the inside of the tent, to actually show all Tom's luxury items, maybe.) Maybe you can help me identify one: after reading the article, is there anything in particular you feel could be illustrated to help further the readers' understanding of the episode? — Hunter Kahn 03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Good job so far, apart from those few issues everything checks out. I'll place the article on hold for the moment. Miyagawa (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! — Hunter Kahn 03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I understand completely about the image, it's only a nice to have because there are no free use images available. Happy to grade this as a GA following those improvements. Good job. Miyagawa (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)