Talk:94 Meetings

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Xtzou in topic GA Review
Good article94 Meetings 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.
Good topic star94 Meetings 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
DateProcessResult
May 8, 2010Good article nomineeListed
January 18, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 17, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that "94 Meetings", an episode of NBC's comedy Parks and Recreation, featured the return of several actors who had previously appeared in the series, such as Alison Becker and Susan Yeagley?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:94 Meetings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 21:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have compiled the following comments:

Plot
Production
  • "The family includes April's extremely chipper mother and father Larry and Rita Ludgate (John Ellison and Terri Hoyos), and April's older sister Natalie Ludgate (Minni Jo Mazzola), who is cynical and brooding very much like April herself." Why is this important enough to be in this section.
    • I thought it was worthwhile just because it's the family of one of the major characters in the show. But if you think it's not needed, by all means, drop it. — Hunter Kahn 21:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Reception
General
  • I think there is something wrong with the page formatting, as the quotebox is below the References.
    • I'm not seeing that error on my end. Can you be more specific? (Incidentally, I realized I forgot to add an "External links" section. That is now added.) — Hunter Kahn 21:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 21:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:   Yes
    B. MoS compliance:   Complies with the basic MoS
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:   Sources are reliable
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:   Well referenced
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Pass!  

Another good article. Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 10:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply