Wikipedia:Peer review/Greatest Hits (Lost)/archive1

Greatest Hits (Lost) edit

I recently rewrote and expanded this Lost WikiProject article on the penultimate episode of the third season of Lost. It appears to meet the criteria and I will soon nominate it for featured article status. If you have any concerns, do not hesitate to tell me, or better yet: address them yourself! Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being a little straightforward, but I (big fan of Lost) wanted to review it before going to bed now. ;-) All of this are just suggestions. I really advice you to find a copyeditor before going to FAC. I can do this if you want, but not today.

Most FA reviewers don't like that much references in the intro, so it may be a good idea to cut them down to only the controversial ones. (No references may be needed at all, because the information is repeated somewhere else in the article).

Four of the six references have been moved down or removed.

When the episode first aired on the American Broadcasting Company in United States and CTV in Canada on May 16, 2007,[3] it was viewed by 12 million Americans. - could be shortened to The first airing of this episode on the American Broadcasting Company in United States and CTV in Canada on May 16, 2007 was viewed by 12 million Americans.

Done.

"The Others"' - The Others is linked, so the quotation marks are slightly unnecessary, and even seem awkward because of the apostrophe afterwards.

Kept quotation marks, but moved away from apostrophe

Sayid Jarrah (Naveen Andrews) tells Jack that he believes that he can communicate - 2x "that", so rewrite to Sayid Jarrah (Naveen Andrews) tells Jack that he may be able to communicate. The whole sentence is a little run-on anyway and could be split.

Done.

Many consecutive sentences sound like "Person A believes this. Person B tells Person C that. Person D argues this and that. Person E realizes that." - A little variety could help.
The fifth is ..., The fourth is, The fourth is - again, a little variety would make it sound a lot better.

Used "penultimate" and "number 3."

The last Plot paragraph consists of three sentences, each one starting with "Charlie". Can be improved.

Done.

Most (if not all) of the episode was filmed from April 9, 2007[13] to April 12. - I didn't check the sources, but this really sounds like speculation even though it is sourced.

I added how to get these dates.

The name of the Dharma station in the episode etc. - You forgot a period at the end.

97198 fixed that.

Monaghan said that "I think ['Greatest Hits'] was [made] to allow the audience to sit with [my character's fate] long enough to prepare themselves for what was going to happen [in the finale]." - rewrite Monaghan thought that 'Greatest Hits' was made "to allow the audience to sit with [my character's fate] long enough to prepare themselves for what was going to happen [in the finale]."

Done.

After Bernard Nadler (Sam Anderson) demonstrates his skill... and "Greatest Hits" marked the first appearance for Bernard - swap sentences for better flow.

Done.

Show runner/co-creator/executive producer/head writer Damon Lindelof responded to their absense by saying that the actors had other projects - (1) Don't show off Damon like that. ;-) Same for Carlton. (2) shorten to explained their absense with their other projects or something like that. Generally, the word "that" to connect two sentences is used way too often and should be improved.

Done.

IGN rated the episode as an 8.5/10, commending the character development of Jack and Charlie, and the acting skills of the actor who portrays Ben. - Plot section mentions no interaction between Jack and Charlie. I misread the original sentence, so strike.

– sgeureka ^t•c 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, all seems to be well but as per the norm there are a few little things:
- In Reception: "...the actor who portrays Ben". Would it be better to say 'Michael Emerson, who portrays Ben'?
  - Changed to "Emerson, who portrays Ben."
- In Production, there are estimated filming dates with references - except I don't understand them. You've linked to two promotional photos from the episode, but as far as I can tell there are no dates...? Enless you've extracted the metadata (but still, I have no idea how one would go about that)?
  - I added how to get these dates.
- In the infobox and plot summary, two guest stars are unlinked. WP:RED: "Good redlinks help Wikipedia". Some people just seem to be allergic to redlinks (not necessarily you, just a generalisation).
  - Yeah, I do not like red links, but I added them.
- On the talk page, you've deemed BuddyTV an unreliable source, yet I see you've cited it as a reference thrice within the article. Thoughts?
  - BuddyTV cannot be used as a source to confirm the episode title or central character. It can be used for real-world perspective.
- And, as usual, an issue with numbers like always (not that I've done too many of these ;)).
  - Normal numbers (over 10) - MoS seems quite general about; they're happy with figures or letters as long as there's consistency, basically. In Plot, we have "16", "seventy" and "eighty", while in the lead we have a "92".
    - Done.
      - Done? I see no changes made to any of them. ? •97198 talk 05:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Aren't they all numbers now? –thedemonhog talk • contributions 05:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Is good. •97198 talk 11:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, etc.) - MoS is adamant that they must be written in letters, unless stating centuries. In the lead we have "21st" and "68th" (which seems to be consistent through every episode of Lost) which are fairly big numbers, yet in Reception we have "fifty-first" and "fifteenth". I do understand that within the lead there is a consistency in style amongst all Lost episodes, and also not a lot of consistency through other featured episode articles from different shows.
    - Done.
- Is it "The Others" or "the Others"? There may not be consistency throughout all Lost articles, but there should certainly be consistency within the article. In the lead we have "The Others", whereas we have "the Others" and a separated "the ambushing Others" in the plot. Even the Others (Lost) article has some consistency issues. IMO, if their own article is missing the "The", then we should just stick to the uncapitalised "the".
  - Made consistent.
Good luck! •97198 talk 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy and thorough reviews. I addressed almost all of the problems (the exception being "Many consecutive sentences sound like…"). –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks good from a distance. I don't really have time to proof read all of it. Only two things really stuck out as being unnecessary. That was the time stamp and the release. First, all hour long shows are typically between 40 to 45 minutes, so stating exactly how long the episode was is just indiscriminate. It had seeming relevance with Through the Looking Glass because it was an extended episode, but here it's just stating general knowledge of television viewing. The second is the release. The episode isn't getting released on its own, you're just stating that it will be released with the season DVD. That's typical, and not really necessary to state outloud. Now, if it was the other way around, and it was being left out of the DVD set, that would be noteworthy. But I don't believe that making note that it will be released with the rest of the season, something that happens with all shows when they are released, is worth noting. If it was like some TV shows, where they released a single episode of the show, like Smallville did with the first two episodes of season 1, then that would be worth noting, since that isn't something that usually happens. I would also try and incorporate a summarization of production in the lead, since the lead should summarize the whole article, not just the plot and the reception section. One more quick note, citations should follow punctuations as a general rule. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The runtime and release mentions have been removed. As for the references, I left many as they were because if they are moved, they appear to back-up other claims. Thank you for your time, –thedemonhog talk • contributions 02:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]