Talk:The Master Plan (Parks and Recreation)

The Master Plan (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.

The Master Plan (Parks and Recreation) 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
December 28, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
January 18, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted

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 Mid-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:The Master Plan (Parks and Recreation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 97198 (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. 97198 (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, great work. I made some some minor changes myself, but there are two things:

Another minor issue which I would've fixed myself but I wasn't sure - with In all three episodes, a different exterior set is used, although the exterior building shots are the same, I assume one of the "exteriors" is meant to be an "interior"?
- You are quite right. Fixed it. — Hun ter Ka hn 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other query I have is regarding the second paragraph of the Cultural references section - I personally don't take "cultural references" as including references to the same show. References to earlier episodes are just continuity, and one would expect any episode of almost any show to have continuity from earlier episodes, even in sitcoms. Even though these are quite clever and specific points of continuity (and I didn't pick up on a couple when I watched the episode myself!), to note them here just seems a bit trivial, and out of place in a section titled "cultural references". I'm just wondering what your take on the inclusion of these earlier-episode-references is?
- Well, I've heard differing opinions on this, including some editors who agree with you. Personally, I feel that cultural references is a perfectly appropriate places for self-references to the show, in certain situations. I don't think it's at all appropriate to include every little self-reference in an episode, because that would just get out of control. (For example, "In one scene, Bart Simpson says "cowabunga!" This is a phrase commonly used by Bart in previous episodes...") is a no-no. However, when it's significant enough of a reference that it is discussed in independent reliable sources, as these in this article are, then I think it warrants a mention. And even though they are self-references, they are still references to pop culture (i.e., the show), so to me it makes much more sense to include them in this section than in Production, which is really about the conception, writing, filming, etc. of the episode. But, I'm not married to this idea, so if you feel they should be moved or removed, I'll accommodate. — Hun ter Ka hn 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still think they're a bit trivial, though. I agree with you that self-references that are discussed in independent reliable sources might be worth a mention, but in this article the source is an audio commentary by Michael Schur, which isn't an independent source, since Schur is directly affiliated with the subject. Since these self-references aren't cited to third-party sources, I'm not sure they're noteworthy. 97198 (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I can't say I agree, but I removed the references. The only one I kept is the one about Schur writing Andy's song; I moved that to the Writing section, since it pertains to the writing of the script. — Hun ter Ka hn 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the GAN on hold, just so you can tell me your thoughts on the second point and clear up the first one. Thanks, 97198 (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Much appreciated, as always! — Hun ter Ka hn 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for addressing that, and sorry for being picky. All in all, very nice work - I'll promote the article to GA. 97198 (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]