Talk:Hearts and Minds (Lost)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 06:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this one. 23W 06:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Did a few copyedits myself.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   dupdet spotchecks return no bulk copying.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Specific

• Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the lead should probably be condensed to one to two paragraphs; the last two can probably be merged without changing much.

• Trimmed down to two paragraphs.

• As with "House of the Rising Sun" (Lost), the infobox image needs a better rationale (or should not be included).

• Removed it.

• "Lost and Alias helped ABC win the night"; maybe change to: "With this, Lost and Alias helped ABC win the night" or some other transition.

• I like your wording and have used it.

• "... main characters crossing paths (Sawyer is ..."; is this an error, or the start of a parenthetical statement?
• '... Ryan McGee characterized the episode as having a "weak backstory with a creeptastic ending," and enjoyed Locke for being ...'; perhaps change to: '... Ryan McGee characterized the episode as having a "weak backstory with a creeptastic ending," although he enjoyed Locke for being ...' (better contrast).

• I like your wording and have used it.

Very good work! A few points, but nothing major. Might bring this one to DYK as well. 23W 08:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing! I've addressed all but the "crossing paths" comment. I don't see any issues with that sentence (the parenthetical just includes an example of characters' crossing paths); could you clarify your opinion? Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 03:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I didn't see the closing bracket. Looks good to me: pass! 23W 04:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)