Talk:Boys' Club (Parks and Recreation)

Boys' Club (Parks and Recreation) 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.

Boys' Club (Parks and Recreation) is part of the Parks and Recreation (season 1) 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
June 29, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
January 17, 2010	Good topic candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 16, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Indiana-based Upland Brewing Company provided beer bottles and props to lend Indiana authenticity to the "Boys' Club" episode of Parks and Recreation?

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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boys' Club (Parks and Recreation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting GA Review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No quick fail problems. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
Ref #1 is to a blog/fan site; ref #7 links to a blog aggregator; ref #11 TV squad is a blog. These do not meet the criteria of WP:RS so other sources need to be found. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]
c (OR):
It is broad in its scope.
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:
~~OK, all good except for the referencing issues noted above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)~~ Done[reply]
OK, I accept that The Hill Blog Briefing Room is associated with The Hill, and is written by Michael O'Brien who is a staffer on The Hill, so that should be OK. Congratulations, you have a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped the other two, but I think the #7 reference is OK. Its a blog, but its the blog of an officials newspaper (The Hill) which is a legitimate source. Take a look at it again and see if you agree? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]