Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Confirmed Dead

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

Confirmed Dead

edit

Self-nomination This article from WP:LOST on the second fourth season episode of the television show Lost was passed as a good article seven minutes ago by Bláthnaid (is that a new record?), who wrote that, "This is an excellent article. It is well written, the plot section is succinct, and there is lots of interesting real world information." Thanks to Sceptre, who wrote the plot section's prose. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just have a look at the section I wrote to see if I can improve the prose. Sceptre (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All other links checked out with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See changes. BuddyTV has an article and VFXWorld has an interview with a Lost editor. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't that BuddyTV has an article that led me to strike the concern, it was that the article listed their webpage that told about them. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written, fully referenced, yada yada yada. What Lost S4 episode isn't?
    • Some reviewers praised the episode for doing a fine job of introducing the new characters, while others criticized this by saying that it caused the pace to slow.
      • Saying "the new characters" is assuming readers already know who the new characters are, which hasn't been mentioned by this point. Maybe reword.
      • After reading over the Reception section, I'm not fully convinced that reviewers (generally) criticised the episode's pace at all, let alone blaming this on the introduction of the new characters.
    • The narrative takes place in late December 2004 over ninety days after the crash - is it possible to reword so it doesn't sound as if the episode takes place over a period of ninety days?
    • Miles is a medium, who is hired... - no need for a comma unless we say "Miles, a medium, is hired..."
    • Charlotte is an anthropologist, who finds... - as above unless we have "Charlotte, an anthropologist, finds..."
    • Locke's group finds Charlotte, takes her prisoner, and dispose of her tracking device - "group" is a singular noun (although referring to multiple people) so grammatically "disposes" would be correct as with "takes".
    • several people become discontent with Locke's revelation that he is following the instructions of Walt Lloyd (Malcolm David Kelley), who had left the island a month previously[7] and they also question - being a bit picky with grammar but IMO the commas act a little like brackets and thus there should be another comma before the ref. Just the way I'd write it, though - commas are personal things. ;)
    • specifically, Charlotte's identity - no need for comma.
    • In the first instance of ref8 although ref tags generally should be placed after punctuation I'd go with the tag before the em dash, just because the dashes bracket off what is almost its own statement (if that makes sense; I'm not the best at explaining things... see Dash#Em dash) so it just makes sense to keep the tag inside the dashes.
    • the writer-producers that "it would be cool - they "believed that..."? They "thought that..."?
    • As I've said before, "much different" doesn't sound grammatically correct but leave it in if you think it's just because I'm Australian.
    • Mader's character's name... - no need to re-state "Mader".
    • A typical Lost episode contains fifty visual effects shots. Citation?
    • No need to use separate refs for 31 & 32 for different pages of an article. Put 'em both under page 1.
  • We'll have to check up with Guinness on the GAN to FAC record, but I reckon seven minutes is worth a few FA brownie points. —97198 talk 04:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Couple of small things need fixing:

  • "rumoured BE spelling > "rumored" AE
  • kilometres > "kilometers"
  • 130 kilometres offshore needs conversion into miles
  • introductions of new characters > "introduction of new characters"
--ROGER DAVIES talk 08:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take responsibility for the British English: I wrote that section and I'm British, so... yeah. Sceptre (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will also take responsibility for the British English because I am Canadian. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to not mix and match styles so either it's all AE or all BE. The obvious choice seems AE as this series has strong national links to the US, per WP:ENGVAR. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose: Why are two screenshots used? Given that the infobox image’s purpose is merely “to identify the subject [Confirmed Dead]”, why couldn’t Image:Tunisian polar bear.png be used for this? It would “kill two birds with one stone”, as it would continue to show the “female Indiana Jones”. WP:NFCC#3A requires “Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary”. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first section is for the plot section and the second is for the production section. There are a lot of things in the production section that could be illustrated (Miles's clothing, Franks's beard, a visual effects shot, etc.) so one picture seems to qualify as "minimal use" to me. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Could be" illustrated is not "need to be" illustrated. Fair use images can only be used when they both, among other things, contribute significantly to our understanding and are used only when necessary. Frankly, I'd argue that both images fail the former, but I'm only going to press the issue of the current use of two images when one would accomplish the same purpose, as described by the FURs. The current usage is not minimal. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-done, especially the Reception section, which is excellent. A couple minor points:
    • Most or all of the episode was shot from September 11[28] to 23, 2007[29] and filming overlapped with the following episode.[30] -- In this sentence, it seems odd to have citations in the middle like that, when they are not directly after a comma. Best IMO to move those cites all to the end of the sentence, in that particular case. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • References section -- pushed over to the left by the Wikiquote box - I'd suggest moving the Wikiquote box to a "External links" section, and add one or two helpful links to that section. Perhaps IMDB and the show's website about the episode. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The plot could use two or so brief background sentences, though this is not necessarily required because the reader can go to the other wiki articles for background - but still, it would be helpful. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Overall, great work, these are just some other pointers which would make the article better. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Confirmed_Dead&oldid=1138457896"