Talk:Galentine's Day

Photo of a man on Galentine's Day page

Why does a photo of a man come up on a day celebrating women?! Can someone please change that!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendybelcher (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Cultural References

Again, the first line is not a cultural reference. It's self-referential. It's materially equivalent to saying that a scene in Bourne Supremacy is a culture reference to Bourne Identity. It doesn't make any sense. Obamafan70 (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"At the dance, a senior citizen approaches Ron Swanson and asks for an autograph from Duke Silver. This is a reference to the previous second season episode, "Practice Date", which establishes Ron's secret identity as a jazz musician." --This is the statement to which I am referring. So basically I can just go and add any reference to a previous episode and claim it as a cultural reference? I'm just trying to illustrate the point here. Obamafan70 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• If it were a case of a continuing storyline, I'd agree. In other words, the article wouldn't and shouldn't include something to the effect of "Leslie Knope is identified as deputy parks supervisors, which is a reference to the first episode, when it established that she is supervisor of...etc etc". But this is a reference to a gag from one single episode. As such, even if it's technically self-referential, I feel it's a reference worth mentioning... — Hunter Kahn 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute the inclusion of such references; in fact I agree with your assessment. I just think that it seems incredibly out of place and context. I would encourage you to place it within the body of the text itself or perhaps in a separate section concerning recurring themes, on-going gags and jokes, motifs, etc.. sort of like Lost mythology or Peter Griffin's family tree (Family Guy) in an article on Peter Griffin. But I will leave that up to your discretion since you have responded and have an exemplary track record with P&R. Cheers, Obamafan70 (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I fear that a separate themes section would be too short considering its only the one reference in this case. Perhaps just moving it up to the Production section would work? — Hunter Kahn 00:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

--Don't even worry about it. It's just an academic point that would only bother quazi-elitists like myself.Obamafan70 (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Galentine's Day/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Plot summary section, just a suggestion, but maybe "Two old women" ---> "Two older women", again just a suggestion.

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lead, "Galentine's Day" should have quotes around it, as it's an episode.

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Ref. 14 is missing Publisher info.

   Still missing.

   Check.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for the review! — Hunter Kahn 19:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I missed the problem with ref 14 above. Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 20:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
      • It's alright, everything looks good now. Thank you to HK for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible Unfunny Ageism

This is a great episode, but the writers' treatment of the elderly at the senior center was a little ageist in tone. SPOILER ALERT. In one scene, two elderly women approach Ron at his table and ask if he is a certain singer. Ron says no but then orders them to move along like an annoyed crime-scene cop. In another scene there, April refers to the elderly as "old bags" when talking to Andy. Neither comment was funny or essential to the story. There were many jokes about the elderly, which were OK, as they fit in the story context rather than being derisive for its own sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.104.223 (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)