Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Other Woman (Lost)/archive1

< 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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 09:16, 23 August 2008 .

The Other Woman (Lost)

edit
Nominator(s): –thedemonhog talk • edits

Hi, this good article from the Lost WikiProject that belongs to a featured topic is about the sixth episode of the fourth season of the American television show Lost. Also what do you think of moving the article to The Other Woman and moving that to The Other Woman (disambiguation)? Compare the 1679 page views The Other Woman (Lost) received from July 2–12 with the 113 the TV movie The Other Woman (1995 film) got in the same time. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak OpposeNeutral—1a. The prose needs additional copy-editing. Here are examples:
    • Several paragraphs in the "Reception" section are blocky; they should be split.
    • "It was written by co-executive producer Drew Goddard and executive story editor Christina M. Kim and directed by occasional Lost director Eric Laneuville." The previous sentence also starts with "it"; try "the episode" for variety. Does "occasional Lost director" really add anything? I think it could be removed.
    • "Recent island arrivals Daniel Faraday (played by Jeremy Davies) and Charlotte Lewis (Rebecca Mader) leave the crash survivors' camp without notice for the Dharma Initiative electrical station known as the Tempest." Redundant words: "island", "crash" (already noted as the type of event they survived), and "played by" (the parenthesis are usually enough for this type of article). "Known as" to "called" is another possible change, but that's debatable.
    • "In flashbacks that depict events on the island, Juliet Burke (Elizabeth Mitchell) discovers that Ben Linus (Michael Emerson) thinks that she belongs to him." "Belongs to him" is somewhat vague, even for the lead.
    • For flow, you should restructure the first sentence so it's similar to that of "The Shape of Things to Come (Lost)".
    • As someone who has never seen (has no intention of ever seeing) Lost, the plot synopsis is a bit confusing. For example: "Goodwin is eventually murdered after his infiltration of the tail section survivors is discovered." ("infiltration of the tail section survivors"? Does this mean that he attacked people living in the tail section of the crashed airplane?) Why are they after the Tempest? Obviously you don't want to explain every little tidbit of backstory, but a few of the major plot points should have a bit of context so they make more sense to readers unfamiliar with the series.
    • "Inside the station, Juliet finds Daniel in a hazmat suit typing frantically at a computer terminal and asks him to terminate what he is doing." "Terminate what he is doing" is long-winded; try a slightly more formal variation of "stop".
    • "After a wrestle and a standoff, Daniel and Charlotte convince Juliet that they are not trying to kill anyone; they are trying to save the islanders by neutralizing the poisonous gas inert in case Ben decides to use it again." "Inert" is redundant; you could even remove "a wrestle and", as a standoff implies confrontation.
  • These are just a few examples. The prose isn't bad, but there are definitely "opportunities", as we say at Target. — Deckiller 21:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if you can find someone to copy-edit the entire text and add a few clarifications to the plot summary, then I think the prose will be in decent shape. — Deckiller 15:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - Both copyrighted images fail WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to help me strengthen the rationale or are you saying that these images have no place on Wikipedia? –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they fail WP:NFCC then they have no place on WP, what is their purpose in the article? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is moving in a direction that is anti-copyrighted images. The acceptable "excuses" for including copyrighted images are growing smaller by the day; they'll probably have to be axed. — Deckiller 02:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont get the point of the new image, what is it there for? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per my previous suggestion in reviewing the NFCC below for this FAC, the image shows three things: one of the dramatic scenes explicitly cited in the plot, a demonstration of what the station looks like, and what the characters look like. I believe it to be sufficiently appropriate per NFC (as opposed to the previous image that just showed an overhead shot of the station and indeterminate pictures of characters, and no specific dramatic scene). --MASEM 12:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are correct that this image is a significant improvement on the previous as it does convey a lot more information, but I am still unconvinced it meets nfcc#8, however if I am alone in this position then I will withdraw my objection Fasach Nua (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can the picture in the infobox be replaced? Just say I was not a fan, all I would see would be a garage thingy, some mountains, and a tiny person. Can a better picture be found? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other image has been moved to the infobox. It is not very pretty, but it probably has the best chance for meeting NFCC. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that article has run afoul of WP:NFCC. Why, for example, are images of both the inside and outside of the Tempest necessary (NFCC#3A requires minimal use)? Rationales are heavy on nugatory boilerplate. Do we think so little of our readers that they can't visualize "a large metal building that would not normally be found in real life on a desert island"? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (and just a few)

  • Can you think of a better word/phrase than "sneak off"? I couldn't, but it does sound somewhat informal.
  • According to the article, The Constant was "widely regarded as one of the best episodes of the series" but there's only one ref to a BuddyTV review for this "wide regard". Perhaps stick a few more in there for some credibility.
  • I think I fixed it all, but there were some issues with the refs getting mixed up as they were all given the same name ("episode" and "podcast" were the two I caught out, when they were all referencing separate sources) so be careful of that here and in the future.
  • The article claims that the Tempest is ("apparently") alluded to in season 2's blast door map, but this is unsourced - the citation after it references episode 2x17 but doesn't address these claims.
  • The Production section also talks about Jack and Juliet's kiss, and "second kiss" is a piped link to Through the Looking Glass. You're often quite clever with your piped links, I've noticed, but wouldn't this instance be better with a citation to the episode instead as the said episode is their first kiss?
  • The 407 (ref 17) and 410 (ref 21) podcasts link directly to the .mp3 files, but 406 (ref 11) links to the main ABC podcast list.

That's about it for now; hope the suggestions were somewhat constructive :) —97198 talk 11:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough copy-edit. Is "slip out" any better than "sneak off"? I use the BuddyTV link because it includes the phrase "there are lots of people calling 'The Constant' the best Lost episode ever". A citation has been replaced for "Lockdown". The piped link has been replaced with a reference. I have changed the podcast link. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 12:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked with the link checker tool. Note I'm on the road the rest of this week, so replies may be delayed somewhat. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Fuselage post that is being cited is attributed to an actor on the show and his identity is "confirmed" in the site's FAQ. A couple more things to help its credibility: The forum is sponsored by an executive producer of the show and the actor posting runs a blog (i.e. he interacts with his fans on the Internet). Much of TV by the Numbers' information checks out on other websites and the site has been deemed reliable by The New York Times, as they have it in their sources list. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still unclear how tvbythenumbers is reliable or what the NY Times page demonstrates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times link demonstrates that a news source says that it is reliable. The site also has a history of publishing information that can also be found on other reliable websites. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the site listed on the NYT page under a section called "Blogroll"; I haven't located the text where they say that it is reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is listed in "The Sources" subsection, which implies that The NY Times uses it as a source, which means that they trust it (yeah, not the best link). –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the last month, The NY Times is quoting one of its editors, as are The NY Post, TV Week and the Fox Broadcasting Company, as well as the listed-in-Google News-websites Broadcasting Engineering, NewTeeVee and Contact Music. Sorry that I did not get those sooner. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this up at the Reliable Sources noticeboard here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Status? Have these sourcing queries been resolved, and are the images concerned above addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, not sure how those sourcing queries slipped through my watchlist. As for the images, there has been no resolution thus far. I believe that they meet the NFCC, but Fasach Nua disagrees. As for the initial oppose by Deckiller, he probably just needs to be notified on his talk page that the article has undergone a copy-edit. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you done that? Also, until images are resolved, it's an oppose. User:Masem is good with images; you could check with others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have left notes on Deckiller and Masem's talk pages. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside it's use and significance, the rationale is fine. However, the use of the image is questionable. Now I've seen the episode (once) so I'm thinking there's a better picture that 1) captures the look of the station/control room, 2) shows the character(s) better (you can barely make out Daniel there, nullifying one aspect of the rationale) and 3) possibly shows the dramatic conclusion to the scene (maybe with Daniel stopping the gas on time). If all three of these can be met, I see no problem with an image there, but right now the current picture is lacking. --MASEM 04:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not at my home computer so I do not have the episode with me, but after going through the screenshots at Lost-Media.com, I still think that that image best captures the look of the inside of the station (what about this?) The part about character identification has been removed. A conclusion of the dramatic conclusion would just be a picture of a computer screen, which is why I think that the current image is the best that we have got. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I suggest this image - it describes a scene that is explicitly in the plot, it gives enough impression of what the Station is like, and everything else I was trying to point out. --MASEM 03:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That image has been uploaded. Thanks for your help, –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks reasonably good now (though when the DVDs come out you might be able to get a better one), rationale is fine; images are good for this FAC. --MASEM 19:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to determine if this 13.008 was a typo, I couldn't verify the text at the source:

"The Other Woman" was watched live or recorded and watched within six hours of broadcast by 13.008 million viewers in the United States,[1]

What is the boundary on spelling out vs. using digits for numbers? The lead has seventy-fifth and ninety-four, but later in the article we find numbers as digits. Why are most publishers on citations given after the article title, but for ABC Medianet, they're given before the article title? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; the citation has been replaced. Numbers are displayed as digits when there are decimals. When no author is given, as is often the case with press releases, the references mimic {{cite press release}}, but they are a bit different in order to make them more consistent with other references in the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are the MOSNUM issues? –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the boundary at which you switch from spelling out numbers to use digits? Some are spelled out, some are digits. Is it greater than 9, greater than 10? All numbers spelled out? Whatever it is, should be consistent. See WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just reread the guidelines in that link and you are going to have to give me specific instances of inconsistencies within the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:15, 21 August 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.
  1. ↑ ABC Medianet, (March 11, 2008) "Season Program Rankings". Retrieved on March 11, 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Other_Woman_(Lost)/archive1&oldid=1216962828"