Talk:Lost (TV series)/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

At the moment, I'm doing a quick read through of the article and then I'll make a decision as to whether I'm going to "quick fail" this nomination. I've, obviously, looked at the last two reviews and both were "fails" due to citation needed flags. I've got to the start of the Cast and characters sections and I've not found any flags yet, which is a good sign.

If I don't "quick fail" it, I'll going to a full review, which means checking all the citations and reading it again. I would hope to have this all finished by the end of the weekend. Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've now read it once, but I've not checked any of the citations/references, etc. I'm most definitely not going to "quickfail" it: I'm going for the full review.

I have a few comments about things that I was expecting to find, but didn't find (I might have missed them, but I'll be looking this time round:

• Nothing about the strike in season 4 that lead to only 14 episodes.
• There was uncertainty during (probably season 4) as to now many seasons (if any) would follow; and how many episodes were left. This information was announced, I think, during a podcast near the end of season 4.
• I thought podcasts had been missed out, but I've now find it/them.

I'm now going to work my way though the article again, starting at Synopsis and finishing with the lead. P.S. I don't now think that a Sunday-finish (i.e. tomorrow) is realistic. Pyrotec (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Synopsis -
  • Overview -

• Looks OK, its basically a summary of each of the seasons and its unreferenced, but since it's only a summary I'm not asking for references.

• • Mythology and interpretations -

• The first sentence of the first paragraph refers to the creators' "elements" and its got a citation, which is good. The rest of the first paragraph is uncited, but it appears to be a summary and its covered in the Overview subsection. But it's incomplete: time travel is not mentioned.

•  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The second paragraph looks OK.

• • Recurring elements -

• Looks OK.

• Cast and characters -

• Mostly OK. As far as I can see each actor and each character is wikilinked once in this section but as some actors and characters were linked in the section above, I ask why they need to be done again?
• The final paragraph is completely unreferenced.

• Production -
  • unnamed subsection -

• Its unreferenced, I'm sure that there are references already in use elsewhere in the article that cover this.

• • Conception -

• This is well referenced and its mostly about conception so I have no problem with an ideal four to five season run for the show being discussed. It then has a throw away line: "Following the commercial success of the show, the network ABC requested to the pair that the length of the series be extended to include further seasons.[41]" which is undated but was apparently made in July 2007 - three years into the show. So, this extension has almost nothing to do with Conception of the show (see later comments about "Scope").

• • Casting -

• Looks OK.

• • Filming -

• The first paragraph is a bit out of date, it states: "...took place there in 1999.[51] The sound-stage and production offices have since moved to the Hawaii Film Office-operated Hawaii Film Studio,....[52]". That reference [52] was back in 2006 and ref 53 was 2005! So why not say The sound-stage and production offices moved in 2006 to the Hawaii Film Office-operated Hawaii Film Studio, where the sets .... were built. [53] (or 2005 if it was 2005).

• • Promotion -

• I seem to remember an almost weekly audio podcast when the episodes were being broadcast with something like a fortnightly video podcast on the ABC website, but these don't get a mention here.

• • Music -

• The first paragraph looks OK.
• The second paragraph is unreferenced, it also only discusses seasons one, two and three, which suggests that this information is incomplete.

• • Scope of this section -

• There are a number of topics that I consider to be missing from the Production section:-

• The Conception subsection for instance mentions an ideal four to five season run and the first three seasons had an average run of 24 episodes each (25, 24 & 23). By then the show was a success and it's decided to extended it, but that is only mentioned in a throw away line in the Conception subsection but no date for that decision appears in the text (I found it from the citation).

• Season three is somewhat different as it is shown in two blocks, whereas seasons one and two were "straight through" showings. That seems to be due to how long it takes to make an episode, but production time is not mentioned in the article.
• Season four was disrupted by a strike, that is not even mentioned or discussed. I (half remember) that it was intended to be 24 episode run but they got 14 made (10 started before the strike and 4 made afterwards?) and at one time it was thought that season five would be the end of the show comprising only the "ten missing" episodes from season four, but it did not turn out that way in the end - seasons 5 and 6 were announced (and how many more episodes there were to be).
  • Some of that does appear in Impact and reception/Critical reception subsection, with a citation, but I don't see why it can't appear in this section as well. Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Impact and reception -
  • Ratings -

• The table is not too well explained. I assume from reading the text in the second paragraph for season one that the first orange column in the table is Rank for the eighteen to forty-nine-year-old demographic but its only labelled as Rank. Similarly, I assume from reading the second paragraph that the second orange column in the table is average viewers per episode but it only states U.S. viewers (millions).

•  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The text for season two averages two does not match the table - one has 14th and the other 15th, but the numbers seem to agree.
• A minor point, but since I'm not an American citizen I don't understand " 9/8 central timeslot" - does that mean that its on TV channel 9 at 8 pm, or perhaps TV channel 8 at 9pm, but the second paragraph states 10 pm, so is that channels 9 and 8 at 10 pm? It needs explaining.

• • Awards -

• Looks OK.

• • Critical reception -

• Looks OK.

• • Fandom and popular culture -

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Looks OK.

• Distribution -
  • Online -

• Looks OK.

• • Home video releases -

• The first four paragraphs given detailed information on seasons one through to four, but the corresponding paragraphs for seasons five and six are absent. The fifth DVD appears to be The complete fifth season: The journey back season and the sixth DVD, The complete sixth season: The Final Season, but they aren't in the article.

•  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The fifth paragraph has information on sales charts for the first three seasons only, so its incomplete.

•  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The final paragraph does have some information on the sixth season, but far less than information than was given in the first three paragraphs about their respective seasons.

• Other media -

• Looks OK.

• WP:Lead -

• This is a three-paragraph lead, but its possibly a bit "thin" for an article of this lead. It's required by WP:Lead to both introduce the topic of the article, which it dose, and to summarise the main points, which it mostly seems to do. There are other requirements that can be found in there.
• There is nothing too obviously missing, but it does say A critically acclaimed and popular success.... and that is not quite an accurate summary. The article makes it clear that season three was criticised for not providing answers, season four was consider to be back on track and seasons five and six were intended to answer outstanding questions, but there was a split of opinion on the sixth season - the article uses the word "polarised".
• There were also podcasts, fan clubs, parody and other media which were a relatively minor part of the article, but they don't get a summarised mention in the Lead.

At this point, I'm putting the review "On Hold". There are a number of "problems" listed above that needed to be addressed. If they are satisfactory addressed, the article will be awarded GA-status by the end of this review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I'll be sorting through these comments in the coming days. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An article that is very close to being a GA, but this nomination seems to have "run out of steam".

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Mostly compliant and certainly a very big improvement on the earlier nominations.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Mostly, but more of the "missing" sub-topics that I've listed above have not been addressed.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Unfortunately, I'm not able to award this article GA-status this time round. It is very close to being a GA and it aught to make GA next time round. I might to be able to supply some of the missing information, but that would preclude me from reviewing the article. I wish the article well, and would like to see it being a GA soon. Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)