Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lost: Missing Pieces

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 01:11, 14 February 2008.

---

Lost: Missing Pieces

Self-nominate This article is about a series of thirteen short installments referred to as mobisodes and webisodes spun-off from the television show Lost. I began work on this in my sandbox on December 17 and published it in the article namespace on January 28. It was promoted to good article status by Will/Sceptre on January 29. It appeared in the did you know? section on the main page on February 2. It was listed at peer review, however, it received no comments (not counting the semi-automated suggestions). External links can be checked here and the relevant WikiProject's page can be viewed here. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, the intro section is too short for the article length (see WP:LEAD). The way the reception section is grouped by source seems odd, and I'm not sure it works well the way it gives a bit of review from only three sites on every episode. Why not a reception section discussion the reception of the webisodes as a whole, and a greater variety of critical responses? The episode table needs a formatting fix so the date doesn't wrap. Why are there two links above the column of references? Why haven't the references been changed to 2 column format? Why no external link to the webisode page (presuming there is an official site to view them)? Collectonian (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead manages to mention all key points, but I will expand it. There are more than three sources in the reception section. Those three each get their own section because they reviewed each mobisode. Other publications that reviewed the series as a whole instead are mentioned in the opening of the reception section. Keep in mind that these are mobisodes and not Lost, so there are not that many critical reviews; I am unable to find any more. I'm not sure what you mean by "date doesn't wrap" because I cannot see this problem. I did not change the references table to the two column format because I use Internet Explorer, which displays one column of references no matter what. I changed it, but that is a minor problem that probably falls under WP:SOFIXIT. There is no external links section because the official website is already listed in the references section and the infobox. It is one of the two links included in the references section, but not in the reflist. I did this because it can be used as a source for the whole episode list section. I think it looks better the way it is now, instead of having "a b c d e f g h i j k l m" before it. The reason for the other link above the reference section is similar to the one for the official website. Thanks for reviewing it, as you have already made this a greater success than the peer review. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize ref|2 doesn't show in IE...wonder why no one has fixed that (or is it just not fixable?) In the table of episodes, the final column, the date wraps to two lines. The column needs to be widen. I made the edit so you can see what I mean. Is the character column necessary when its already shown in the webisode summary? I also did an edit to change the references to use the same kind of system we've used in some other FAs with a similar issue. What do you think? Collectonian (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead has been expanded. I see that you edited the episode list section. Is the problem still there? The changes to the references section is good and I have also seen this done elsewhere. The character column is not necessary, but it makes List of Lost episodes more consistent. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead is much improved and nope, problem cleared up with the edit. I think, for this one, the character column could be lost, but would be find with keeping it to remain consistent. One minor nitpick: the dark green in the infobox is hard to read black text on, especially for those with bad eyes. ;-) Can that be changed to something more readable, and maybe change the episode box to use a more complimentary color?

Support, can't see any other issues, and the article is well referenced and seems to be as comprehensive as it can be. Collectonian (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Support while not as polished as the other Lost FAs (it doesn't even have an external links section) seems good enough to pass.igordebraga ≠ 14:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

An external links section is unnecessary because it would be duplicate of portions of the references section and infobox. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

External links sections are not a requirement, in fact, minimizing ELs is desired. See WP:EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Support, and suggest a concurrent supplemental nomination to the featured topic. Will ^(talk) 15:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How do others feel about adding this to the featured topic Seasons of Lost? I am on the fence about this one. It is not really a season, although it does contain episodes. Perhaps it is better as part of the eventual/potential topic for main Lost articles. This topic would include all articles of the Lost WikiProject, with the exceptions of the season, episode and character pages. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: apparently this FAC missed the pre-load. Please check the dead links identified here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the preloaded text when I started the nomination and instead integrated a link into the opening paragraph. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The refs aren't consistently formatted. Some have the publisher before the title, and others after. Epbr123 (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The ones that have the publisher before are primarily press releases that give no author. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.