Jump to content

Talk:The Lie (Lost)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Lie (Lost) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 26, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Miss Hawking

[edit]

I noticed on the article page the woman at the end of the episode is referenced to as being Miss Hawking and when you click on her name you are sent to the article for the episode called, "Flashes Before Your Eyes." I can't find any mention of her on that page and was wondering if this is an error. Lekogm (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily an error. She first appeared, and until now, save for an appearance in a picture, in that episode. But I suppose we should have more mention of her. --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, Ms. Hawking is mentioned in that article. --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Drugged Darts

[edit]

Well, there were two of them...In fact, Jack seems to confirm that there were three,which adds up to the amount of shots, but you can only visually confirm two. The point is that they are clearly trying to take Sayid alive and yet almost kill him with too many darts. The words one and two have the same amount of letters, so the only add is the letter "S" negated by the loss of the letter "A" in fact, it comes in smaller, because you need no space.85.124.39.253 (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Appearance of the Other Survivors

[edit]

Shouldn't it be noted in this article that this was the last appearance of the non-main character survivors of flight 815, with the sole exceptions of Rose and Bernard? The article suggests most survived, but the fact that none of the survivors are ever seen again seems to suggest that they are, in fact, all killed, or trapped in past history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.243.157 (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Lie (Lost)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 01:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Cheech Marin? This show keeps getting more ridiculous.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    I'd try to work the citations in the lead into the article body instead. They're only used in the lead, and there shouldn't be anything unique in there.
    ""The Lie" is the second television episode of the fifth season of ABC's Lost" -> Should probably be ""The Lie" is the second episode of the fifth season of ABC's television series Lost", otherwise the implication is that the season consisted of more than television episodes.
    There might be too many cast names mentioned in the plot section. I don't know how important the roles are, but I'd say anyone who's mentioned in the infobox's "guest stars" section could be omitted in the plot section.
    In the "production" section, when you mention that Michelle Rodriguez's character was killed off in the second season, you should probably explain how she reappears here, since the paragraph's a bit thin and a wee bit of padding would help that.
    " Cheap Trick's song "Dream Police" is featured in "The Lie"." -> Seems a bit awkward. Perhaps phrase it as "The episode made use of the Cheap Trick song "Dream Police"."
    "Because You Left" and "The Lie" were uploaded to ABC's media website—ABC Medianet—on December 29, 2008" -> I'd put the explanation in the parenthetical and lead with the site's title, or else phrase it as "Because You Left" and "The Lie" were uploaded to ABC's Medianet website". Either or.
    "IGN gave the episode a "Good" rating of 7.8 out of 10 and summarized that the episode "is a much more focused story..." -> "and summarized the episode as being "a much more focused story..."
    the encounter the group has at the end with some men dressed as soldiers is just set up for the awesome "Jughead." -> you're missing a quotation mark here. Should be one either side of the full-stop - one for the title "Jughead" and one for the end of the quote.
    You could also do with dropping the capitals at the beginning of the quotes you use, as they seem out of place in the middle of sentences.
  • Had a look at the source, and yeah, they have it parsed incorrectly. Technically you should still have another quotation mark at the end there, but it would then leave the sentence ending with two consecutive quotation marks, which would probably look worse. I'd say leave it for now.
  1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Apart from the lead needing work, as mentioned above, the MOS is fine. However, I do feel that the presence of unique cited material in the lead needs to be addressed.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Citations themselves are grand, no OR or any of that.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Scope is good.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article is neutral.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    History is stable.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Images are fine. One is commons, no problems; the other is non-free with a solid rationale.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The 1A and B issues need looking at, but apart from that the article should be okay to pass. I'll put it on hold until the concerns listed are addressed. GRAPPLE X 01:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed the changes, going to pas this one. Well done (again!). GRAPPLE X 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Lie (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Lie (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Lie_(Lost)&oldid=1202752000"