Talk:Pawnee Zoo

Pawnee Zoo has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Pawnee Zoo is part of the Parks and Recreation (season 2) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 20, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
January 18, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 29, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that "Pawnee Zoo", an episode of the American television comedy Parks and Recreation, features a same-sex marriage between two penguins?

Current status: Good article

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pawnee Zoo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JulieSpaulding (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hunter, I'll be reviewing this article. I'll be going through the problems I spot semi-haphazardly, so bear with me...

You might like to reference the plot section. If you don't want to cite the Pawnee Zoo episode itself, at least cite a show recap.
- I know you know this now, but WP:TVMOS doesn't require citations for plot summaries. — Hun ter Ka hn 01:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph of the section 'Production', a weasel word appears in the phrase 'Commentators suggested...' and in the sentence before that also. Exactly who suggested that?
- Actually, there's no reason to use that wording in this case anyway. I simply dropped the weasel words and changed it to say that the penguin marriage mirrored the real life one. — Hun ter Ka hn 01:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'said' is used 20 times in the Reception section. I would probably vary my statements like this:
Critic A commented that Poehler's character appeared too cheery, but Critic B viewed this as a mere statement of her individuality.
- I dropped some of the "said"s. — Hun ter Ka hn 01:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the use of the word 'literally' in the last sentence of the 'Plot' section necessary?
- Dropped it. — Hun ter Ka hn 01:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's nit-picky, but I'm willing to pass this article right away as soon as these issues are fixed. JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
JulieSpaulding (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]