Talk:The Other Woman (Lost)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleThe Other Woman (Lost) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic starThe Other Woman (Lost) is part of the Lost (season 4) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 12, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 1, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
August 23, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 16, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 25, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 13, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that critics from the Los Angeles Times and Entertainment Weekly have described "The Other Woman" as the worst episode yet of the fourth season of the television show Lost?
Current status: Featured article

Good Article Review[edit]

  • "seventy-fifth episode overall that was aired on March 6, 2008" - another exhausting TV marathon :-)

Plot:

  • Suggestion: It should be fairly easy to add a sense of time for when the individual flashback moments occured - 2001 and then October(?) 2004. This helps to give the "December 2004" date better context
  • The last three sentences of the first Plot paragraph sound like stop and go, and should be combined into two sentences
  • The focus of the sentence "In the jungle, Juliet is approached..." is somehow "off". It seems to switch between Juliet, Harper and a narrator.
  • "After they find her..." - who is "they"? (I know who, but the sentence doesn't make it really clear.)
  • The sentences about Daniel and the computer-typing are too detailed - at least one sentence can be removed there and it would still make sense
  • "Desmond Hume's (Henry Ian Cusick) girlfriend Penny's (Sonya Walger) father" -> the father of Desmond Hume's (Henry Ian Cusick) girlfriend Penny (Sonya Walger) - I don't think the genitive clause twice in a row is a good idea
  • "Ben hands over a file containing information..." - begin the sentence with "After", and the rest will fall into places (prose suggestion)

Production:

  • Mitchell said that "it emotionally draining - word missing
  • "until four in the morning" - add "o'clock" or something similar
  • the information about Ana Lucia sounds extremely pointless until later in the paragraph - consider putting the sentence "Juliet was conceived by the writers as the next possible love interest for Jack" before that (and do a quick rewrite) to give context for the Ana Lucia information
  • The last two sentences of the paragraph should be moved somewhere to the front of the paragraph. They currently appear like an afterthough, when in fact they would be ideal to get the reader into the mood for the paragraph
  • Too many quotes in that paragraph (but the information is good) - variety helps
  • generally: Every sentence seems to begin with the actors' or characters' names - some words like "After", "Although", "Nevertheless" or something usually help (prose suggestion if you want to take this to FAC)

Reception:

  • "When hyping the episode, Elizabeth Mitchell said..." this sentence does not really belong in the reception section, but rather (if at all) in the production section. Also, I think the word "hyping" is not exactly encyclopedic tone
  • Patrick Day of the Los Angeles Times called it "the weakest episode of the new season so far" -> this quote has no trademark feeling to it, so it shouldn't be quoted
  • the reviews seem to jump around a lot in opinion: weakest, so-so, 2nd weakest, subpar, Roth bad, enjoy, Roth good, awesome, not impressed, worst - group this
  • Suggestion (I don't know at this point whether this would make the article better or worse): move the reception information about the recurring/guest characters behind the claims of this being a Ben- instead of a Juliet episode. I think the Ben section is the juiciest of the whole section, so it shouldn't come so late.

Image FU rationales and the refs are good. I'll put this article on hold until the above concerns are reasonably addressed (within the next seven days). Concerns marked as suggestions are just peer-review-y suggestions and don't need to be addressed if you think they are bad or are un-actionable otherwise. Please consider reviewing another GAN as time permits, to keep the number of reviewed and to-be-reviewed articles balanced. – sgeureka t•c 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You may already know it (and this will of course not influence the GA nomination of this article) - Darlton have a new audio podcast [1] which may contain some more bits about the production. – sgeureka t•c 11:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diff. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know I was a big fan of the this-is-really-a-Ben-episode paragraph two days ago, but I now feel that the intro sentence of that paragraph already summarizes the following four sentences in a certain way. User:Fritter made a similar comment about Lost's reception section in general quite recently. This is not to say that I consider the reception sections of Lost episode articles bad, but that this is a fine suggestion to help get the articles to FA, even if (or especially since) this shortens the Reception sections to the real mentionworthy bits. The other changes were satisfactory, with a few minor things left that I would change, but there isn't anything major anymore to prevent the promotion of this article to GA. – sgeureka t•c 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go ahead and make the changes that you believe should be made. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit[edit]

Following User:Thedemonhog's request, I've ran my eyes over the article. All looks pretty good, just a few minor things here and there:

  • typos according to FireFox's spellcheck add-on:
    • "relevations" --> "revelations"
    • "backstory" --> "back story"
    • "not the writers intention" --> "not the writers' intention"
  • clarifications:
    • "Recent arrivals" --> "Recent island arrivals"
    • "two members of a science team from an offshore with a hidden agenda—Daniel and Charlotte—who landed on the island three days earlier" --> "two members of a science team from an freighter anchored offshore—Daniel and Charlotte—who landed on the island three days earlier with a hidden agenda"
    • "however, Harper did not appear later in the season." --> "however, Harper did not make another appearance in the season."
    • "The couple was nicknamed "Jacket" and has gained an Internet fandom." --> "The couple has gained an Internet fandom and been given the portmanteau nickname "Jacket"" (you may wish to link to portmanteau, but it's a dab with no better choice of linking, or interwiki-link to wikt:portmanteau)
  • tense:
    • "Rebecca Mader said that she was "so excited" for the episode to air because she thinks that it is "even better"" --> "Rebecca Mader said that she was "so excited" for the episode to air because she thought that it was "even better""

I also utilized the template {{interp}} (Template talk:interp for usage) to manage the interpolations in quotes, and removed part of the TMZ quote, "and Juliet in a bikini did not disappoint." just my personal opinion, but I don't really think this is very relevant to the episode, though it might be better for her character article.

Obviously, feel free to undo anything you're not happy about. Hope it passes FAC next time! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks so much. I had literally taken your talk page off my watchlist just a few minutes before your copyedit. –thedemonhog talk • edits
Yeah, getting kinda lazy in my old age! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Other Woman (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on The Other Woman (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Other_Woman_(Lost)&oldid=1204262195"