Talk:Pilot (Lost)/GA4

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pakaran (talk · contribs) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Review in progress~~ GA Status granted March 8 2014

Hello, I was asked by User:Newyorkadam to look at this article, and did raise some minor flow and sentence structure issues with him on IRC, which have been fixed. I'm still actively checking, but at this point, I see no reason why this is ineligible for GA status. It's not unreasonable to be concerned about the article being illustrated with a fair-use screenshot, but the lead of the article discusses in depth the huge production cost created by the crashed plane listed. The facts are well cited, and a spot check reveals no copy-paste plagiarism (though at least one blog plagiarized the article itself).

The article is still quite actively being improved, and I'm still talking with the author, as well as rechecking in case I'm missing something (the GA process is one of the areas of Wikipedia I haven't been too active in, so I figure erring on the side of caution is wise). One issue raised in GA3 is that the plot summary was too long. It's now about 50 words longer than it was at that time, but it's reasonable to say that that alone should not be cause for failure.

I'm still actively discussing issues with the user on IRC, and he's still actively improving the article to an extent that makes it both unfair and infeasible to review fully at this point. Pak aran 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the issues mentioned in past reviews have been fixed prior to nomination. Others, including some that I identified before reading those reviews, have been corrected during further discussions with the nominator via IRC. The most prominent remaining issue, though I strongly suspect not the only one at this point, is the length of the plot summary. There's a case to be made that the pilot of a series is in some sense more significant, but hundreds of words over the recommended length doesn't seem appropriate (though as I said, I don't feel that that, of and by itself, should be fatal). Pak aran 22:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After further IRC discussion, the article is in a much better state. I've asked the nominator to cut the plot summary to 1000 words, at which point I'll review it for anything that seems to need cutting, and if not, I'm not seeing any other issue precluding GA status. Pak aran 00:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the plot summary (along with other fixes), see if it's good enough now. igordebraga ≠ 13:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After half an hour reading the summary several times, I didn't see anything that clearly required cutting. At this point, the length of the plot summary appears compliant with GAC subcriteria 1a and 3b, which were the most worrisome ones. I'll be honest and say I'd prefer a still briefer plot summary, but considering that flashbacks are a major trope in the entire series, there's no cause for failing this nomination on that basis alone in view of the state of the rest of the article. I'll pass it now. Pak aran 16:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]