Talk:Confirmed Dead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Confirmed Dead 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

	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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low-importance within Lost.

	Confirmed Dead is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 21, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 4, 2008 Good article nominee Listed April 28, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

Contents 1 Redirection 2 Fake plane 3 Man on boat? 4 Good article review

[edit] Redirection

All information I added to this page was from IMDb (which is an official source??). But deletion of contributions is just typical for the English Wikipedia anyway. - Mark Jensen (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDb is actually not a reliable source. If you wait a few days, ABC will confirm this and the article will be restored. If we add stuff without sources, we head down a slippery slope. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been confirmed so I restored, rewrote and expanded. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The link to Charlotte Lewis is to the English actress, not the Lost character. It needs to be the link to Charlotte Staples Lewis, which is a wikipedia page. I'd change it myself, mut I don't know how. Tessaroithmost (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it was changed. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fake plane

Shouldn't it be noted that the plane they found was not at all Oceanic 815? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.236.147 (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't know how the plot is panning out here, putting in that the plane is fake might be a misnomer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.94.238 (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Man on boat?

Could anyone explain this to me? I know that little is known from this episode, but what does Ben mean by having a Man on the Boat? Why would that cause for the search on Ben? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.162.183 (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this was cleared up in later episodes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

This is an excellent article. It is well written, the plot section is succinct, and there is lots of interesting real world information. I just have some nitpicks before making it a Good Article. I'll put the nomination on hold for seven days so these issues can be addressed.

• The image Image:Lost-ConfirmedDead.jpg needs a non-free use rationale.
• In the plot section -- "Daniel Faraday (Jeremy Davies) is shown in care" -- what is he in care of?
• "Frank, an alcoholic who is originally scheduled to fly" -- should that be "was originally scheduled"?
• At the start of the second plot paragraph, I think it would be helpful to specify that the events in that paragraph are in the episode's "present day" (fall 2004)
• Production section -- "Leung can be quoted" -- should that be "Leung was quoted"?
• "Leung believed that he was trying out for the part of "brilliant mathematician" "Russell"." is sourced to 'Lost': Five Fresh Faces but the source doesn't have that information. Can you find a different source?
• "Lost's writer-producers compared Mader to "a young Nicole Kidman" is sourced to [1], but the source does not include this information. You can use the source 'Lost': Five Fresh Faces instead.
• "Charlotte's full name is Charlotte Staples Lewis, which is an homage to the author C.S. Lewis, best known for The Chronicles of Narnia and various books about Christianity. Lewis was one of Mader's favorite authors as a child and found it "wicked" and "cool" for her character to be named after him" is sourced to [2] but that article does not have this information. It needs a different source.

That's it! Please let me know if I can clarify anything. Bláthnaid 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I cannot believe that I missed the non-free use rationale. All concerns have been addressed, except for the one about Frank, which I am leaving because fiction is always in the present tense. I considered removing "Confirmed Dead" from the GAN list because it sat for two weeks before anyone reviewed it, but I am glad that I waited. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the concerns so quickly. Frank and the present tense is fine (to be honest, I get confused about what is past and present on Lost). The article definitely passes the GA criteria now, and IMO is well on its way to becoming a featured article. Bláthnaid 15:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: