# Talk:The Master Plan (Parks and Recreation)

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)
I will review this article. 97198 (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
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. — Hunter Kahn 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
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. — Hunter Kahn 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. — Hunter Kahn 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
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)

Thanks for the review! Much appreciated, as always! — Hunter Kahn 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
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)