Wikipedia:Peer review/Through the Looking Glass (Lost)/archive1

"Through the Looking Glass" (Lost)

Hello, I rewrote and added to this article about the third Lost season finale, changing it from this overly long plot synopsis to the current well-written version without an in-universe perspective. Spoiler warning: Do not read the article if you have any intention on ever watching Lost because this episode is the highest rated on TV.com. I am going to be applying it for featuring article status soon and am wondering if there is anything I can do to make the article better. Although the plot summary may seem long at first, the episode is two hours long and features approximately twenty major characters and five storylines. Thanks, thedemonhog talk • edits 06:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive fair-use images need to be cleaned up and/or their fair-use rationales improved. Nearly every image is justified only by the claim that they "feature significant characters", including Image:Lost radio tower.PNG, which has no discernable characters at all. Each image should justify why it uniquely belongs, because this seems in its current form to violate our WP:NFCC #3 that we should strive for minimal use of non-free media in an article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an image and strengthened each fair use rationale. --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another very nice and well-written Lost article! (Although I have resisted the temptation to read the Plot section, as we're over a month behind and I haven't seen the finale yet.) There's only one main criticism I can make, though, and that is the citation of blogs and fansites - only a few - which is against the Lost episode guidelines, which states: "Media and fan reaction: If an episode prompts a particularly notable reaction from fans or professional TV reviewers, this may be discussed if properly sourced through reliable sources (i.e. no blogs or fan sites)."
Other than that, I did do a quick word count of the Plot section - almost 300 words over the recommended count (500 words per hour), but I think 1,280 words is still a pretty modest plot summary considering the circumstances. Otherwise, well done! •97198 talk 01:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I only cited one blog and one forum (twice). The reason I cited that blog is because it is the original source of the leaked synopsis, although I could just cite an article about it being leaked. The forum is a list of what episodes have been submitted for Emmy consideration. While I am able to get a real article about submitting "Through the Looking Glass" for outstanding drama, I am unable to find another source for outstanding writing. --thedemonhog talk • edits 04:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a decent article. Though blogs are not reliable sources and I believe the article contains too many external links that which fail WP:EL (Television Without Pity, LOST Wiki, Lostpedia and YouTube). The infobox image could also do with some improvement as it's not very descriptive (this (which should be JPEG) would be better, in my opinion). Matthew 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of the blog citation and removed all of the external links that you mentioned because, which do fail WP:EL. I disagree with your infobox image preference. Jack was the main character of the episode and his flashforward was a major revealtion and cliffhanger. --thedemonhog talk • edits 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just my opinion -- at the end of the day it doesn't really bother me which image is used. Also, what about splitting the guest stars into a separate section from the infobox (as there's quite a lot of them -- for example it could be called casting (and it could be a sub-section of production?)). Matthew 16:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this casting section be a list or information on how they were casted or would it be a section similar to the cast and characters section on the main page? --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it could be either. Prose rather than lists would probably strengthen the article, but it may not be possible as I personally can't find any sources that could be used. Matthew 17:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well done overall, and impressively well-referenced. I think that it's just about worthy of FA-status. Cliff smith 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Guest stars" list is obnoxiously long in the infobox. They aren't all "stars" by any stretch of the imagination. Some of these are pratically extras. Savidan 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not "practically extras" – some of them were extras! --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be on vacation starting tomorrow until the 25, but when I return I will nominate this article for FA. --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:
- You should perhaps wait until the DVD boxset comes out before going for FA status. GA status, certainly, but I doubt it will make FA until the DVD comes out.
- The plot is WAY too long. I think the official limit is 10 words per minute, although it's a pretty loose guideline. As it is, the plot could easily be cut in half, and I don't know if the subheaders are necessary.
- Some of the sources are a little questionable, ie. Blogs are generally frowned upon and I don't know if DarkUFO is considered a reliable source. We used to have poll results on all 3 Simpsons episode FAs, but we were forced to remove them.
Like I said, I suggest waiting for the DVD to come out, but you should go for GA status after you cut down the plot. I have 15 Simpsons episode GAs and 1 FA to my credit, and I know how hard TV episode pages are, but apart from what I pointed out, it looks very good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a little late; I just nominated the article for featured article status. Nice work on all your G and FA's. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]