Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Other Woman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by User:SandyGeorgia 23:07, 25 October 2008 [1].

The Other Woman[edit]

Nominator: User:thedemonhog
Previous FAC (09:16, 23 August 2008)

This good article from the Lost WikiProject is about a television episode of the fourth season of Lost. At the last FAC, a potential sourcing issue was brought up and another copyedit was requested. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Image:The Other Woman.png is low resolution, has source, and compelling fair use rationale, so images meet criteria to me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that any of these ([2][3][4]) meets the criteria even better? –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy yet—1a.

  • "From a writing standpoint, the episode provided multiple revelations for a variety of purposes: it furthered Juliet's back story and relationships with Ben,..."—sounds as though your addressing a writing workshop with a clumsy, unclear sentence. Make it plain and simple. It's a humungous sentence, too.
  • "with critics from the Los Angeles Times, Entertainment Weekly, and BuddyTV deeming it"—another "noun plus -ing" misfortune. Again, a huge sentence. Split it.
  • "Another common claim by critics was that more was learned about Ben than Juliet in the episode, which was not the writers' intention"—you know the writer personally?
  • "garnered"—a little precious.
  • "Meanwhile"—let me vomit.

Long sentences, lack of clarity, prose glitches. It's within reach, but needs solid input from copy-editors unfamiliar with the text. Tony (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Let me vomit." I am not sure if I should laugh or take offense. Anyway, those examples have been dealt with and I have given the article another readthrough. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has changed quite a bit since you last saw it. BuddingJournalist has copyedited the lead and first section after that and hopefully he continues. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that BuddingJournalist has not edited in the last week, his last edit being his copyedit of the plot section. I will find another copyeditor. –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber is ‎performing a copyedit. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What makes the following a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from first FAC: "The Fuselage post that is being cited is attributed to an actor on the show and his identity is "confirmed" in the site's FAQ. A couple more things to help its credibility: the forum is sponsored by an executive producer of the show and the actor posting runs a blog (i.e. he interacts with his fans on the Internet)." –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very good article, but why don't split the reflist in two columns?--Andrea 93 (msg) 14:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like the locked-in gaps that are created with a second column. (Someone else has added it.) –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Image:The Other Woman.png doesnt meet nfcc #8 or #1 Fasach Nua (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is "no free equivalent", as the show is copyrighted. As for #8, I do not know about you, but when someone mentions a 1980s electrical station on a desert island filled with computers, I do not know what to think. There are other "purpose[s] of use" in the image description page. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support A well-referenced article. The JPStalk to me 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, very well referenced, interesting and clear. Good Job!--Music26/11 11:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the vomit comment above. One thing that could improve this article significantly is the splitting of some of the paragraphs. It looks grey and daunting even at a distance. It's a 15-minute job by a copy-editor. Tony (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean sections when you said "paragraphs"? (The paragraph breaks seem fine to me.) –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 01:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with one comment:

  • The episode opens with flashbacks to Juliet's life on the island, following her recruitment in September 2001 by the Others,[6]. - Weird punctuation.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that was weird. Fixed, unless you liked the first comma. –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support (I'm a little embarrassed I didn't pop up here earlier!) A nice article, I couldn't find anything wrong or questionable myself. —97198 (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Other_Woman&oldid=1138473381"