Talk:The Lie (Lost)/GA1

GA Review

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

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.

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.

All addressed except "the encounter the group has at the end with some men dressed as soldiers is just set up for the awesome "Jughead." is a direct quote so I can't add punctuation. Ruby2010 comment! 01:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.
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.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Scope is good.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Article is neutral.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
History is stable.
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.
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]