Talk:The Economist (Lost)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Economist (Lost) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	The Economist (Lost) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 19, 2008.
March 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	Television Portal This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles relating to the 2004–2010 ABC television series Lost. Information on future episodes needs to follow the policy regarding sources.

[edit] Clean-up

The information provided in this article is excellent, especially the litteral analysis. But the article really needs a template clean-up. 77.241.139.217 (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

All of that has been removed because it was copied from Lostpedia and violated a few policies and guidelines. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zoe Bell?

It says she was a guest star in this episode. Did I miss that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.69.161 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

She did voice acting as Regina. She will physically appear in "Ji Yeon". –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Hello. Here are a few things that I felt could be done to help the article.

Lead-

• The first sentence seems a bit lengthy. Nothing really wrong with it as is, but it might help to separate the sentence at "....episode overall" and "that was aired...." and revise it a bit.
• Sayid, Charlotte, and Faraday are all linked twice. It's usually common to not link in the lead, and to leave the link in the plot.

Plot-

• Is there a link for Jacob?

Production-

• Cuse and Lindelof need to be both introduced and linked.
• It's already stated that Andrews portrays Sayid, and he's already been introduced, so only his last name is needed in the first sentence of the last paragraph.

Reception-

• Can we get a number on the amount of British viewers?
• I'm guessing that 5.8/15 is in Nielsen Ratings, so a link to Nielsen, as well as a short explanation of what they mean should be added.

Per GAN rules, one week (seven days) is an appropriate amount of time for the completion of these requests. Please place a message on my talk page once you have completed these requests or have placed a reason as to why a request cannot or should not be completed. Once you're done, I'll review it again, and if it looks good, I'll pass it. Have a good day! Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 13:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Normally Will (the writer/nominator) would be doing this, but he is on vacation. Concerns have been addressed, with the exception of adding a Nielsen explanantion. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Because this article passes each of the following, it merits promotion to GA-class

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 23:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)