Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Through the Looking Glass (Lost)

< 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Through the Looking Glass (Lost) edit

I have improved this article about the third season finale of the television series Lost. Major spoilers follow if you have not seen the episode. Everything is referenced, the article is comprehensive and factually accurate. The plot summary may appear long at first glance, but this is a special two-hour (with commercials) episode of a serialized series with at least five major storylines. There are quite a few fair use images and if this is a problem, I will remove the ones with lesser rationales. Self-nominate. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • OpposeNeutral: I still think you should wait until the DVD release, but I otherwise have no issues, so I don't oppose promotion. The plot section is WAY too long and I think it could easily be cut in half, some of your sources are questionable, such as the DarkUFO blog and I think you should have waited until the DVD came out until nominating it. Waiting for the DVD release is usually a requirement for film articles, such as Casino Royale, which was nominated several times before the DVD release and failed each time. -- Scorpion0422 23:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Waiting for the DVD release is usually a requirement for film articles" (I called the roflcopter for that one!)... we best wait for the HD-DVD as well, then... [/eos] Matthew 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Be immature all you like, but it usually is what happens. -- Scorpion0422 23:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shortened the plot section and it is now ~1000 words long including the ~250 word background, which is inside the Lost WikiProject guideline of 500 words per normal length episode. I even removed the subheaders and a couple of images. The 67 sources are fine, with the exception of the poll that DarkUFO ran that attracted over 200 000 votes, which may be a problem. As for the DVD, I see no reason to wait for it. There isn't going to be a commentary for this episode, and improvements to featured articles are fine. I ask you (Scorpion) to reconsider your vote. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The plot is much better now, but I still think citing a blog isn't right. Besides, it was 200 000 votes for every single episode match up (about 50 seperate polls over the course of a couple months), not 200 000 votes in a single poll. As for waiting for the DVD release, like I said, film articles usually have to wait for the DVD because of all of the new info that could become available, so why should it be any different for episodes? Another issue is the images, there are 3 fair use images that don't seem to illustrate anything significant. Usually in episode FAs, images that illustrate the plot are limited (See the FACs for Homer's Enemy, Homer's Phobia and Cape Feare for more info). -- Scorpion0422 23:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, I removed the DarkUFO sentence. I think the images are fine. We have never seen Jack act the way he does in the flashforwards, Charlie disabling the code will get the survivors rescued (or bring about the destruction of the island), I don't think the average person knows what a radio tower looks like, and Ben is usually a powerful evil leader and now nobody listens to him. How are they not significant? --thedemonhog talk • edits 00:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Good job, sourcing could probably be improved slightly... but the article is quite decent. The plot is not too long at all, Scorpio needs to take into account headers and images (also the infobox pushes text slightly) and that's not forgetting the plot is quite complex. Matthew 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Ah, episode pages, my first love! Very good page, although I'd probably have ratings and awards as sub-sections of the Reception. But aside from that, it seems fine. Gran2 06:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - the "Ratings" and "Reception" sections are extremely USA-biased. There is not one mention of viewing figures or reception in the UK, Australia etc. The image Image:Prisoner Ben.PNG is there merely for illistrational purposes, so should be removed. The article should be re-named to Through the Looking Glass (Lost episode) per WP:MOS. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'll help work on the de-USAing and removing the Ben image. Will (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why does the ratings section need to be all by itself? It's slightly rare compared to how it's normally listed. Also, can the plot be trimmed down some? It seems to me that the article is giving an awful lot of important to the in-universe part of this topic. Like, do we need the background episode? The background information is equivalent to the plot of this episode. I mean, you don't see "Background" for Halloween II, a featured film article? At the current moment, all of the Lost episodes still have their own article, so ther isn't a need to recap all those episodes. We aren't ABC, it shouldn't be our job to "get the reader up to speed". That is what watching the show is for. I get that it's important to fans, but if you are going to explain what led to this episode you might as well explain everything on for the series. It's truly not necessary. If it was, does that mean we need a "Background" for the final episode of the entire series? That would be a pretty long recap.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So I should destroy the background section? --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hate to say "destroy" it. I don't think it's necessary, considering it could become very tedious is you want consistency. I think the problem is that it's an episode late in the series, and not something like a pilot that doesn't have backstory, or a Simpsons episode that has no continuity whatsoever anyway. Try reading the plot for the episode, and see if that summarizes the entire episode well enough. The way I see it, if someone is reading the article on the season 3 finale, they probably know the rest of the series anyway, or have atleast read all the preceeding pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tried to integrate some of the background into the plot paragraph and deleted the rest. How is it now? --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might as well incorporate the flashforward information, as you generally shouldn't have (from what I've been told) only one subsection in a section. I'll read over the plot and see if it can be summarized further. I have no issue with allowing a slightly longer plot than is normally allowed, because LOST has 30 million characters each episode, so it tends to cover a lot more ground.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Encompasses all aspects of the episode. Excellent work. -- Wikipedical 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good work, is comprehensive. Plot could be referenced a bit more, but Reception nad Production are very well-sourced. Cheers, Jude. 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only way the plot could be referenced more is if I referenced the episode the article is about, which seems a bit redundant. Would you like me to do that? --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, what we do with plot sourcing for Simpsons episodes is we include citations for the official site and a book at the end of the plot section. -- Scorpion0422 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I'll pass on that. There is already an external link to the ABC.com episode guide. --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support despite having not finished this episode yet (broadcast in 2 parts in my country) and thus skipping some spoilers, great job, the article is detailed and well-sourced. To the third Lost FA! igordebraga ≠ 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per changes made ans=d above comments. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Comments -
    • Is this necessary? – ‘’When the episode first aired on May 23, 2007 in the United States and Canada, it was preceded by a clip-show, "Lost: The Answers."’’ – There doesn’t seem to be a mention of it anywhere else; it just seems tacked on.
    • The mention of the commercials and without the commercials is kind of trivial. It was a two hour episode, that’s really all that needs to be said. If you really think it's necessary to detail such a thing, put a little spot in the infobox (you'll probably have to update the template for that) that says "Episode length - 87 minutes (without commercials)" or something.
      • Both of these have been cut from the lead and pasted into the production section. --thedemonhog talk • edits 01:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably should say “several awards” instead of being specific. Why the favoritism toward Emmy’s? Because they are American? The reception section mentions other nominations.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got rid of clip-show mention, and changed it back to "some countries." It aired in two parts in other countries, but I couldn't get a source other than Lostpedia or some website in some language that I do not speak and do not understand and do not know if it even says it there. As for the Emmy mentions: The Emmys are the most prestigous television awards. For example, it is much better to say that Forest Whittaker won the 2007 Oscar than Johnny Depp won the MTV Movie Award for PotC. --thedemonhog talk • edits 20:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you cannot be vague to bypass WP:V. You should state what you have a source for. If someone finds a source for another country, it can just be added later. I checked the Argentina website that was linked, it's dead to me. I get a Lost picture and an "X" on the left side, but there isn't any text to go along with it. But who gives the Emmys or the Oscars precedent over MTV or BAFTA or The Cinematographer's Society of America (or United Kingdom, there are several locations)? That's why the lead should summarize and not play favorites. What if a reader is younger, and knows MTV Movie Awards better than he/she knows the Academy Awards? They won't see those as more prestiguous. Or, if the reader is from another country. My point is only that it's seemingly biased to not only Emmys but the United States. Since it was the most recent episode, it could get nominated for much more awards.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed the link to the Argentina website, which doesn't really have anything on it. I also mentioned that the episode has won other awards, but kept the Emmys in the lead. --thedemonhog talk • edits 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the two part episodes in other countries. There's no source for that information, and it isn't mentioned later in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you think that I should do about the "2 parts" problem? --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless we can find a source that mentions "some countries" or goes into specific ones, then it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Someone may have seen it first hand, but we have to have verification of such things.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Is Friendly's death maybe worth noting specifically? Also, the plot section does make it mistakenly sound like Ben shot Locke in this episode. Otherwise, its a great article. Tphi 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's good, but the line "The survivors have still not been rescued" should be taken out (as it could be said on any episode's page), and the critical response section seems a tad overblown. Otherwise, a well-rounded page. -- SilvaStorm
  • Support - thoroughly sourced pivotal episode of Lost, comparable in notability to any book published in the last 50 years.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - I have to oppose for now, because as I'm going through the article (sorry that is taking so long, but I have to work full time and go to school, so my attention to things is limited to short bursts) I keep finding things that need addressing. I go through each section and I'm finding peacock terms, somewhat wordy sentences. I'm trying to correct them as I go along, but I haven't gotten into the majority of the body, I was working on the plot and just recently tackling the lead (which can be seen from thedemonhog and my discussion above). It isn't that I don't think this article is great, I do, I just cannot support until we make it the best it can be, as FA status shouldn't be achieved only to have to make many corrections to the article afterward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can you please be a bit more specific in your objections? "I keep finding things that need addressing" isn't all that helpful. Raul654 17:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Well-written, well-sourced and provides solid out-of-universe contextualisation. The problem for me is that as someone who has never seen the show, the plot section is totally bewildering and seems overly detailed and complex. I see digging around the series that this is sort of par for the course, but as an FA, it needs to be accessible to people who have little or no prior context. Perhaps the plot description could be shortened and simplified? I am willing to change to support if this is an insuperable issue, but I think this is a bit baffling to readers not familiar with the show. Eusebeus 14:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The plot section is actually not overly detailed. It leaves out some details important to someone who watches the show. It still stands fine the way it is, but my point is that if it should be changed, it should be longer and not shorter. There used to be a "Background" section, which summarized events prior to this episode and can be viewed here. Higher on this page are Bignole's first comments about why the background should be deleted/ merged into the "Plot" section, which is what happened. --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. I don't see how trimming would make it more understood by the casual reader, and we can't put in lots of backstory just to explain things to someone not familiar with the series. The plot would be huge if we explained everything that happened prior to this on the one page. There is an article for the previous episodes, they can view them there. There are citations for the previous episode information as well. It's confusing because you are jumping into the season 3 finale. Being shorter is going to confuse people even more. That's the problem you run into when you deal with such things. Halloween II doesn't go into extended detail to explain what happened prior to it. Plus, since it's a 2 hour episode, the plot will be a bit longer than a normal episode page. It's below 600 words, which is better than most feature films of the same time length.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yea, I suspected as much. Does that raise an issue about FAs that demand a certain level of background knowledge on the part of the reader to make sense of the content? Or perhaps the plot should be secondary (i.e. treated almost peremptorily) to the out-of-univserse notability garnered by the episode (- awards, critical reaction, etc...?) Eusebeus 22:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Random episode articles reaching FA status is hard enough. The Simpsons are special because they lack continuity. This show itself is special because it has more character than it knows what to do with. I mean, there isn't a point to explain who the characters are, most have links to an article or a "list of characters" page which explains them there. The only thing I could think of is to, maybe, give a couple sentence premise for what the show is. If I was more familiar with the show, maybe I could write something up that is simplistic for this episode, but at the same time kind of gives you an overview of the whole series up to that point, without adding lots of words, or becoming overly details. Unfortunately, I'm not (I don't watch it), so I won't be of help there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, if as someone also unfamiliar with the show you read through it and were not baffled by the plot exposition then I'll revise my vote - my reaction might be anomalous. Eusebeus 09:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understood what was happening, but I had no idea who was who and why they were doing it. But I blame that on just not knowing the series itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think that is what I meant to say. It's not confusion in the way it is written, but that rather the details are themselves bewildering if you haven't followed the show. Charlie Pace (Dominic Monaghan) dives down into the Looking Glass, with the hope of disabling the system jamming outgoing transmissions, but he is captured by resident Others Greta and Bonnie, etc... and if you haven't watched the show you are thinking, wtf?? Looking Glass...? transmission? And by this point, something like 15 characters have been named already - I was completely ... well, lost. I guess the real question is how do we promote articles to feature status when, as a precondition of understanding it, you have to have prior knowledge. It may be akin to scientific articles that are really only comprehensible to specialists. Is the front page a good place for articles that have a restricted audience? Eusebeus 11:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This may be the point where we have to say things like "Charlie dives down into the Looking Glass, which was discovered in "Episode X", and disables a system (change to "a" might help, as saying "the" makes it specific and we don't know what system it is) that was jamming outgoing transmissions the surivors were attempting to make to Naomi's ship (I assume that it was her ship). Charlie is capture by ...."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or, "Charlie dives down into the Looking Glass, which is a 'fill in very brief definition', to disable a system ...."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I can't see the article getting much better. Good job. -DocNox 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These fixes needed: All fixed. Epbr123 01:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, it is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences.
      • I disagree. And other featured articles do it. --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two wrong don't make a right. I'm afraid it's part of the FA criteria that articles comply with WP:MOS. Epbr123 19:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The guidelines say that it is recommended - not mandatory. --thedemonhog talk • edits 01:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nothing in guidelines is mandatory, but it's part of the FA criteria to comply with its recommendations. Epbr123 01:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
          • This objection is really subjective. It isn't like grammer or something that should obviously be fixed. FA criteria says you should follow guidelines and MOSs for your project, but even the guidelines and MOSs don't deem that much as a necessity. Frankly, certain aspects are out of date, and no longer supported. Just look at the guideline for WP:LEAD. Up until recently, which you can check in the history for where I removed it, it said that you should have 3 paragraphs for 30k characters, with a recommendation to split the article upon having 30k characters as per WP:SIZE. Well, SIZE was appended awhile ago and 30k characters (which is equivalent to 30kb) is not the recommended size to split an article. So, WP:LEAD was working with an out of date supporting guideline. The reason I mention this is that having an objection to an image having a fixed size is like having an objection that the plot section comes after the production section. Technically, if you look at the style guidelines for films and television shows, the mock up shows Plots first. Does that mean they shouldn't be FA if the plot comes in chronological order of when it actually appeared? If so, I think all the Star Wars articles should be de-FA'd. My point; you have brought plenty of other good, fair, reasonable issues to light here...but I have to say that this one in particular is purely editor choice. If someone wants to hold a discussion on the talk page about it, great, but it does not harm the quality of the article, which is what FA status is about, being of the best quality.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Actors Jorge Garcia (Hurley) & Daniel Dae Kim" - ampersands shouldn't be used  Done
    • "fictitious 1980's Dharma Initiative" - apostrophe not needed  Done
    • "Lost to Conclude in 2009-10 Television Season" - the date range needs an en dash, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes  Done
    • "Series Programming Results 2006-07 Primetime Wrap" - the date range needs an en dash  Done
    • "in the key adults 18-49 demographic" - the age range needs an en dash  Done
    • "Roush Dispatch - Way to End a Season" - the hyphen should either be a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash  Done
    • "great-- tense, suspenseful, action-packed, " - the dash should be unspaced  Done
    • "Lost - The Looking Glass War" - the hyphen should either be a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash  Done
    • Does the blog have copyright permission to display this magazine image?  Done Changed source.
    • Commas should not be placed between months and years, as per WP:DATE  Done
    • Comic-Con International 2007 - single years shouldn't be linked
      • I'm not sure that I fully understand what you are saying, but I removed the wikilink in the example. --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Links should only be made to articles that provide context. A link to 2007 won't help anyone understand Through the Looking Glass any better. Epbr123 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Currently, the episode is nominated for three 2007 Primetime Emmys" - avoid statement that soon become outdated  Done
    • "is currently nominated for "Drama Episode of the Year"" - will soon become outdated. Epbr123 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I personally believe it adheres to the Lost episode guidelines in addition to the all-important featured article criteria. It's well-written, fully referenced, neutral, comprehensive, succinct, factual, stable... The list goes on. It has come a long way, and I know how much effort has gone into its improvement, and I must say it's incredible compared to what it used to be. I can only point out a few (possible) errors:
    • The lead's statement that "...the episode has won awards." is vague. Maybe "a number of awards" or an actual specification of the number of awards, like three (???).  Done
    • The sentence in the Plot section "Jack informs Kate that he loves Kate, after Kate witnesses a kiss between Jack and Juliet." reads very strangely. Is it really necessary to refer to Kate with her name and not "her" and "she" (respectively)? I don't see any interference or potential confusion with other female characters - the closest I see is a reference to Juliet in the previous sentence, but I still don't think there is any potential confusion between the two.  Done
    • Both the lead and Production section use the spelling "flashforward", whilst the final paragraph of the Plot section uses a hyphen ("flash-forward"). I assume the first is correct? •97198 talk 06:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues from my Oppose -

  • ”Through the Looking Glass" is the 22nd episode of the third season of the ABC television serial drama series Lost, and the 69th episode overall.” – Can this be reworded, or trimmed? It just seems unnecessarily wordy. Mostly in the description as it pertains to ABC. How about: “’’’Through the Looking Glass’’’” is the 22nd episode of the third season – 69th episode overall – of the ABC television series ‘’Lost’’.
  • ”Like the previous two season finales, it was two hours long with commercials—twice the length of a normal episode.” – Maybe something like: “Like the previous two finales, it filled two one-hour time slots, which is twice the length of a normal episode”. – I just don’t care for that “with commercials” thing, because it doesn’t seem relevant. This is my opinion, and not detrimental to the article; I just think it is unnecessary.
    •  Done Changed to "Like the previous two season finales, it was two hours long, which is twice the length of a normal episode." thedemonhog talk • edits
  • ”This is the first Lost episode to feature flashforwards throughout the episode, as opposed to the customary flashbacks.” – Maybe remove the “throughout the episode”. Is it necessary? The details of the flashforwards—“The flashforwards show the life of series protagonist Jack Shephard (played by Matthew Fox) in ruins after he has escaped the island.”—are already in the plot, so this sentence is almost a direct duplication.
  • ”Although it was not named or explored until the previous episode, the Looking Glass, was first alluded to when Sayid found its cable in the first season[12] and later when it was seen by Locke on the blast door map in the second season.[13]” –What does this have to do with production?
  • The prose needs tightening. There are peacock terms, some redundancies with additive terms (like “also”). I found it a bit choppy when reading. It would probably be beneficial to read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a to try and find all of them and correct them. I would also find a third party to come and copy edit the article for grammar mistakes.
    • I removed some "also"'s.
  • ”The dramatic score was composed by series musician Michael Giacchino, while popular music was also featured and referenced throughout the episode. While Jack drives to the funeral parlor, he listens to "Scentless Apprentice" by Nirvana. The code that Charlie disables the jamming in the Looking Glass is to the tune of "Good Vibrations" by The Beach Boys.” – “dramatic”? I would probably just say “score” and link to the appropriate page. What references to popular music? Having it play in the background isn’t a reference, it’s just music. If someone explicitly states that they add that as a reference, then that is a different story, but there is no source saying that. All I see if a notation that these two songs were playing in the episode. It doesn’t really have anything to do with production so to speak.
    • Removed "dramatic" and "referenced," but kept in Production.
  • ”While the 10-year old character had left the island 26 days previous to the events of the episode,[18] the now-15-year old actor had not filmed Lost in one year.” – This needs rewording to be more clear. You’re mixing IU and OOU in the same sentence and it isn’t coming out too clear. 26 days before the events of this episode make no sense to someone that doesn’t watch the show. Is that 26 episodes prior as well, or 5 episodes prior? Maybe something like this could better clarify: “While Kelley’s character had left the island in “Episode X”, only 26 days prior to the events of “Through the Looking Glass”, Kelley had not filmed an episode in over a year and was physically more mature since his last appearance.”
    •  Done Changed to "While Kelley’s character had left the island in the second season finale, only 26 days prior to the events of "Through the Looking Glass," Kelley had not filmed an episode in over a year. In his single scene, Walt is visibly taller, has physically aged and has a deeper voice." thedemonhog talk • edits
  • ”Although uncredited, show runners Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse lent their voices for the unseen roles of the flight captain and newscaster, respectively.” – “Although” is unnecessary. Just say: “Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse lent their voices to the unseen roles of the flight captain and newscaster, respectively”.
  • ”This episode concluded the story arc about Charlie's death that began earlier in the season, when Desmond prophesied Charlie's death.[22] Throughout the season, Charlie escaped death.[23] Desmond told Charlie that he had to die this time for his girlfriend Claire Littleton to get rescued from the island.[6] The storyline of Charlie's death was conceived while producing the latter part of the second season after the storyline of Charlie's drug addiction finished.[24] The news of his character's death was broken to Monaghan two episodes in advance.[25] Monaghan felt "relief" for knowing the future of his job on the show.[26] On the night of Monaghan's second last day on set, he was presented with a canoe paddle that had been made by the cast and crew and then took part in a gambling party.[27] Monaghan hopes to return to Lost as a guest star in flashbacks.[28]” –This entire paragraph needs rewording and some copy editing. It’s extremely choppy, seems to be missing words (“Monaghan’s second last day on set”? – is that “second to last day”?...or do you mean that he had two last days?)
  • ”After Lindelof and Cuse wrote the scene, only Matthew Fox (Jack), Evangeline Lilly (Kate), Jack Bender (executive producer/ director) and Jean Higgins (co-executive producer) were given copies of the script.” – Probably not a need to re-educate us on who each is. We can look up to the next paragraphs for who they played, or what their job is.
  • ”The season finales have longer runtimes than the average Lost episode. Without commercials, "Through the Looking Glass" clocks in at 1:27:07.[36] Unlike most episodes, this episode does not feature a "previously on Lost..." recap at the start of the episode; however, it was originally preceeded by a clip-show entitled "Lost: The Answers," when it first aired on May 23, 2007.[37]” – This seems out of place. I’m not seeing a relevance of knowing this information. Ok, why didn’t it receive a “previously on Lost”? It appears that we are just making an observation that doesn’t really have significance. What did the clip-show do for this episode?
    • Said that clip-show served as an extended "previously on Lost." The runtime may not be relevant, but I like that piece of information. thedemonhog talk • edits
  • The production section is confusing. It mentions production starting and ending, then jumps to the guy working on the music, then to the casting of “special guest star”. Music generally happens last in production, so it should probably be mentioned last. You write and cast before you film.
  • ”The first hour was viewed by 12.67, while the second hour was seen by 15.04 million people.” – Should probably specify “million” with 12.67, and you could more easily say “…, and increased to 15.04 million in the second hour.”
    •  Done
  • I have to call into question the entire critical reception section’s neutrality. It reads like an advertisement for the show. You cannot tell me that absolutely no one disliked the show. It’s heavily skewed to the positive light, as if the show has no problems whatsoever.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can find me a negative review of the episode from someone who is paid to write about TV, please add it. View all changes here. --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added this, "The writing for Locke was criticized, one writer saying that 'it seems irrational that he would go and [stab Naomi] in the back without explaining himself.'[58]." --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • {EC)You know it doesn't work that way. It seems that the section is just crammed with as much positive review as possible, and they are only snippets discussing how great this episode is. None of those "positive reviews" had any criticism about the episode? I just saw you added a bit about Locke, but is there more in the reviews. Also, do we need so many? That's one of the reasons it looks so "I'm the greatest" is because there are 25 statements about how great this episode is, with comments like "shocking". I felt like I was reading the back of the DVD. The reviews should include the writer's thoughts and not simply just blanket statements of "WOW!". You mention IGN twice in two different places. The same with E!, TV Guide. I get you're using different writers for TV Guide, which is mentioned more than twice, but one should be sufficient. Especially since both liked the episode. I would use the one with the best commentary on the episode. "Matthew Fox's lead role acting was praised, his performance being called "Emmy worthy" by BuddyTV,[54] "excellent" by IGN[63] and TV Guide,[57] "fearless [and] balls-to-the-wall"[64] and "tour-de-force,"[65] by another TV Guide writer, while another TV Guide critic wrote that Fox has "stepped it up again.[49]" --All that in between citation 54 and 49 is a little heavy. That's the kind of stuff I'm referring to when I say it reads like the back of a DVD box, which is meant to promote the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I cut it down, although it can still be cut down if necessary. I also added Lindelof and Cuse's opinion, but that might go better in Production. See changes here. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Muh, don't bother. The only people who are going to bother reading through the article are going to be fans of the show, so the ra-ra nature of the critical reaction is not a major issue in my view. I have removed my oppose vote above. I think this is of much too limited interest (to be completely honest) to be a featured article since it requires too much in depth knowledge of the series to even any sense of the content. But that, to be fair, is not the author's fault and is an argument that should be made about FAs generally. As long as narrow FAs about matters of limited accessibility are allowed, this is fine. Eusebeus 23:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC)I'll read over everything again in a bit. I want to give my eyes a rest and go finish my dinner. [To Eusebues], we don't write articles for a particular person but to everyone. neutrality is a policy, and making sure you don't write an article that seems like it's doing nothing more than promoting something is a must. Demon is taking efforts to make that happen, and when I get back I'll try and find some more neutral criticism of the episode to help the section out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are looking for NPOV. If critical reaction was like 50 -1 positive, then the article should reflect that in the sources and quotations it educes in the text. I have no idea, of course, if that is the case. Eusebeus 23:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, and I'm not saying that we'll find an even number of pos/negs for the episode, but it also helps to word even the positive reception in a manner that doesn't appear to be over-enthusiastic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need citations for those songs in the production section. You're asking people to accept the fact that the two songs being played are from those two artists. More trust is being as for the one that says "to the tune", as it insinuates that there are no lyrics, just melody.
    • I'm not really sure why I need a source for Nirvana. Some dialogue from the episode clearly states what other song the tune is to: --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • CHARLIE: Is that the code?
      • BONNIE: Five, five, four, three, seven, seven...
      • CHARLIE: Start again.
      • BONNIE: Six, one.
      • CHARLIE: Stop, Bonnie. Start from the beginning, start again. Bonnie, Bonnie! Wake up, stop. Bonnie, start again.
      • BONNIE: Good vibrations.
      • CHARLIE: What?
      • BONNIE: Beach boys. Good vibrations. On the keypad, the numbers, they're notes. It was programmed by a musician.
        • Then that's the reference. Put in <ref>Bonnie identifies the numbers to the code a music notes, and says they are to the tune of "Good Vibrations" by the Beach Boys</ref>
  • There is still heavy use of peacock terms in the reception section. Even though they are cited as part of the review, simply pulling the terms as the only means of talking about the episode violates that MOS. For example, The episode received positive reviews from critics.[43] The Los Angeles Times wrote that it was "action-packed,"[44] Access Atlanta said the finale was "deeply satisfying"[45] and the Associated Press called the episode "gripping," "powerful" and "terrific".[46] --This should be avoided. But, BuddyTV praised the unpredictability, saying that "no other show can even attempt to do what Lost does."--manages to compare it to other shows. There are no buzz words, just a neutral tone. What I would prefer to see is something like, the powerful season-ending episode redeemed the series with the shrewdness and intrigue that made it so addictive in the first place.--which was taken from your Associated Press source. It isn't over the top excitement, there are no peacock terms. It pits this episode against the entire season (there was a bit about the downfall of the season just before hand), and explains that this episode lifted the season out of the trenches basically. It doesn't "tell", it "shows". These are what should be looked for in the sources you have. The San Francisco Chronicle source also compares this episode with the rest of the season (a concurence among reviewers if you will). Here is a good one from that SF Chronicle source that is currently only using "great twist"--Not only was the pace fast, the teases taut, and the answers plenty, the writers took a compelling gamble (though one not too difficult to unravel or further complicate). They told viewers that in the future, all (or maybe all) of the people on the "Lost" island get off. They get their wish. But in Jack, our guide through this series, the writers definitively say, "Be careful what you wish for."-- It could be summarized a bit so that you aren't copying a paragraph of review, but the idea is to show people what made the critics think the episode was great, instead of simply telling them that the critics thought the episode was great.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed many quotes from the same companies and exchanged one-word quotes with those that compare the episode with the season or other shows. Thanks, thedemonhog talk • edits 17:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The last sentence of the Critical Response sections reads "On a less positive note, The Sydney Morning Herald wrote that Lost "may have unjumped [the shark] with [the] flashforward."[58]". Is this really a less positive note? My interpretation of "unjumping the shark" would be that the show previously did jump the shark, but has made up for whatever decline in quality (or critical reception) with something better than expected. Is my interpretation wrong? •97198 talk 07:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw that as well, and thought the same thing. Jumping the shark is usually considered the moment when the show is in a downfall.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - The article is looking much better. But there are a couple things I think could be tweaked. Mainly, the entire last paragraph of the reception section. First, I checked the IGN source and they didn't say "excellent" for Matthew Fox, they said "you've got excellent acting--especially Matthew Fox", so the "excellent" was directed at all the actors, not just Fox. The "balls-to-the-walls" just seems over the top. The only real viable info is the BuddyTV comment about it being "Emmy worthy", which I think can be merged into the main review by BuddyTV. The last line about unjumping the shark comes out of no where, because you are talking about Fox one second and then the entire show at the end. I think there is enough praise already to lose that bit. I would replace the bit from Cuse and Lindelof with the Entertainment Weekly bit, as they talk about the writing specifically. That way, you can follow up with how an IGN writer thought the writing for Locke was out of place for the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Wikipedical and Zythe. This is yet another great product of WP:LOST and I look forward to seeing more. Cliff smith 05:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — some of the links in the episode references are redundant. Every time the episode number is stated, it's a link to the full LOE; and every time the season number is stated, there's a link to the season page. Cliff smith 20:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's so much crap, this topic. My query is how people who are enthusiastic enough to write an article on it can do so as well as this. Just a few things:
    • Australian readers will take "ABC" to be the name of their national broadcaster. Spell it out on first occurrence.
    • "When the episode first aired on 23 May 2007 in the United States and Canada, it was watched by an average of 14 million American viewers." Why is this an "average"? I suppose it means that people dipped in and out of it. Strange. Tony 08:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, people dipped in and out as can be seen in the "Ratings" section, and I specified which ABC. --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
  1. ^ .
  2. ^ .
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Through_the_Looking_Glass_(Lost)&oldid=1144778228"