Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lost (TV series)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lost (TV series)[edit]

Self-nomination. This article has undergone drastic re-formatting to what I think meets the Manual of Style and featured article criteria. It has a much better lead section and has been entirely converted to prose. The images have all got fair use rationales there are references where needed. I think it is time now. SergeantBolt 22:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support from self-nominator, of course. SergeantBolt 22:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nicely done. Well referenced, MoS among other things. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 03:56 (UTC)
  • As a frequent contributor to this page, I am proud to Support this FA nomination. -- Wikipedical 03:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Some of the references need to be put after the sentence and use the proper subsection format, ===, instead of the <big> tag. Thanks for addressing these former problems. The article is commendable to me right now; the only complaints I can find right now against this article is its hard compression, leading to one paragraph sections, and the unattractive "DVD releases" section at the end--consider using a table like other featured television show articles (Arrested Development, Cheers, The Office, etc.). Slof 09:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have reinstated the proper subsection format, however, could you tell me where references are needed? SergeantBolt 09:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean that some of the article's references are before a comma or period, when they belong after them. Furthermore, is there a reason for the <nowiki>
    tag when there is no succeeder floating to the left? Slof 09:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've sorted the placement of the references. Icey 10:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have sorted the DVD releases section. SergeantBolt 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support While i am one of the many wikipedians that access this article per day, i think the article is very good. Explains things very well. It has it`s own subpages and are like 100. List of episodes and every episode in its own subpage. Every character in it`s own subpage. Even secundar characters and extras have their own subpages. As for Losties : Namaste :) KYMYK 11:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article, here's lots (ha!) of pedantic issues and suggestions I have. I've crossed out anything I've fixed. I've added underlining to some parts for emphasis.
    • The picture is of the third season. However, that hasn't started in the US and over here in the UK we are still enjoying the second series. One of the great things about not being on paper, is that we can be in the present. So maybe it would be a good idea to stay with a picture of the second series until the third series starts?
    • "when the then-head of ABC" - I'm not too sure about "then-head", looks a bit weird to me. Can it say "at the time" or something like that instead?
    • "based on an idea he claimed to have had for quite a while" - Is this suggesting that he may not have the idea? If so, this should probably have a reference.
    • "gestation" - Maybe I'm a bit stupid, but I've never heard of Gestation before. So I looked it up and the primary meaning of that word appears to be "the carrying of young in the uterus from conception to delivery". However, it looks like you mean it to mean "conception and development", perhaps it could be changed to that to make it more accessible.
    • "Lost's pilot episode was the most expensive in the network's history, reportedly costing between US$10 and US$14 million." - The amounts mean nothing to me. Could it be shown in comparison to something else, so that people who don't know how much a US dollar is worth could understand it. The sentence is saying it's the most expensive, so maybe comparing it to the second most expensive or the average would be a good idea.
    • "other episodes cost GB£0.99 each." - Ditto.
    • "Episode structure" - This section has no references.
    • "Shortly after an episode, a small trailer showing out-of-sequence clips from the next week's episode is shown." - Could it just say "next episode" instead? This is because the next episode isn't always shown the week after. For example, here in the UK the "next episode" can be viewed straight after on a different channel. At other times there's been a continous run of six shows when it's been repeated. Etc, etc.
    • "Varèse Sarabande" is linked twice in the same paragraph.
    • The second paragraph in the "Cast and characters" section has no references. I imagine it would be easy to find some for the information contained there.
    • "During its first two seasons, characters whose stories had dead-ended were replaced with other actors" - Does that mean the stories have ended or the characters had died and thus, their stories ended? I'm just wondering if you're using the "dead" in "dead-end" literally.
    • The "Season synopsis" is very US based. I suppose that's okay, because it's airs there before everywhere else. It would be nice to mention somewhere else though. Actually, the article doesn't say where Lost is shown. There's seems to be a lot of interwiki links, so is it shown in other countries as well?
    • The "Mythology" and "Thematic motifs" sections have no references, but I suppose they are summaries, so that's probably okay.
    • The "Discredited theories" section could do with some references. Also, if there's a discredited theories section, would it not make sense to have a theories section? One of the main things about the shows appears to be the mystery of the events and trying to work out what is going on.
    • "and/or" - This shouldn't be used, see the MoS for info on that.
    • "Dead" - Goes to a dab page.
    • There's some American spellings and some British, like "colours", "licensed", "licenced", etc. They should be consistent.
    • The ToDo box on the discussion page has two items that aren't done yet.
    • There doesn't seem to be (m)any negative things said about Lost. Surely they must have done something controversial or made a notable mistake along the way?
  • There ya go, that should keep you busy for the rest of the day! Icey 14:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your feedback. I hope you don't mind me striking out items as they are fixed. As for your comments about this article favoring the US, that's because it's a United Stated show. I'll make some changes to make the article less nationalist like you suggested above. Jtrost (T | C | #) 17:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cool, thanks for working on those things. Icey 19:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Okay, I've worked on a lot of your suggestions. However, there are some things that I don't agree with. I think that the third season picture should stay there as season 3 is coming up soon and that is the latest promotional poster. I don't think it should change in account of other countries who are behind (I live in the England too!). Also, I don't think the "other episodes cost GB£0.99 each." needs something to compare it too because it's just a standalone cost of something - not competitive like the cost of the pilot. I also haven't changed the phrase "dead-ended" as I think it's quite clear that it means the characters' stories had stopped, not referring to their lives! Another thing: I have actually added a paragraph about the countries that Lost airs in as well as the dates it began airing, which I am about to reference, however I think the season synopses should stay US-based because that is where it airs first. I did add a reference to the Mythology section but there wasn't really more that needed referencing - like you said, it's only a summary. The ToDo box now only has one item that needs doing. The other suggestions you made, however, I will try to handle. Thanks anyway! SergeantBolt 20:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: I tweaked the "dead-end" sentence some. If it's an unpopular change go ahead and revert it, but it doesn't hurt to try something new out. I agree with everything else you said. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nice work. I agree with the things you've said, Bolt (yay English person!). I've changed to Support. Icey 23:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Frequent contributor giving his opinion here, I think it's ready for FA.--Peephole 14:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Generally a good article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good article. Rama's arrow 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for two reasons. One, too many short, stubby paragraphs, especially in the Production section, and I believe this is due in part to too many subheadings. A lot of the information in the separate subheadings can be combined into one nice, clean, flowing section. Two, the prose is a little bit "start-stop-start-stop" you know? Here's an example from the lead: "To date, two seasons have aired and a third is set to begin airing on October 4, 2006.[3] The show's creators and the media have acknowledged a range of thematic motifs and developing mythology.[5] Lost has been a critical and ratings success, garnering an average of 15.5 million viewers per episode and winning several awards including Emmys,[6] Golden Globes,[7] the Writers Guild of America 2005 and a Screen Actors Guild Award." Jumps around a bit too much there as well, and do you really need to reference the show winning Emmys and Golden Globes? I'll have a fuller look after my concerns are addressed.--Dark Kubrick 23:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I merged some sections in to one section so there's not really any more stubby sections.. SergeantBolt 20:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better. What about Mythology and Thematic Motifs? It just seems like those sections could be summarized a little bit better and fuller, instead of a short 1-paragraph mention and a link to the main article.--Dark Kubrick 01:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Support - per nom --+andrewTalk 05:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: As per nomination. Please note I am a sometime contributor to the article.--Opark 77 09:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per nom LOGOHERE 13:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was my understanding that articles were not eligible for featured status unless they were more or less stable. In the case of the Lost articles, there is still an ongoing mediation about how to organize the various episode articles (with the two camps being unable to agree on whether to have individual episode articles, or season compilation articles). If that issue is not relevant to whether or not the main article can be featured, then I support the nomination. Otherwise, I think we should hold off until the mediation is resolved, as the various supporting articles are still in a state of major flux. --Elonka 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The mediation is not about this article, so there is no reason why people should oppose this FAC for that reason. Jtrost (T | C | #) 02:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, the mediation of Lost episodes has nothing to do with the main Lost page. As for stability, Elonka, you've seen it yourself. Changes in the article in question have been more or less copyediting rather than vandalism. -- Wikipedical 04:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I was a regular editor of the article for a while, but took a backseat while Season 2 aired in the UK. I'm in favour of the recent changes, which now give a good general overview of the series with just the right amount of detail. Chris 42 21:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lost_(TV_series)/archive2&oldid=1138465978"