Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lost (season 1)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Promoted Crzycheetah's concerns are irrelevant to the list itself: such an issues belongs on Articles for Deletion, not Featured Lists Candidates. Circeus 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The page is fully sourced and is modeled after The Simpsons (season 1), which is an FL. One small issue I will address, there are no individual citations for the episodes. This is because the official Lost website which has all of the synopsises does not allow you to link to individual pages. Anyway, any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Meets all FL criteria: it primarily is "useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed", and also complies with WP:MOS and WP:LOST, although I do believe the episode summaries could be a little more "prosey". Apart from that, there are only a few tiny little things that might need fixing/tweaking:
  • Which numbers should be written in numerical form, and which spelled out? In the lead, there are "24" episodes, while in the Reception section there were "twelve" Emmy nominations, but "14" cast members in the Cast section. Per Manual of Style: "the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are spelled out; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as digits, but may be spelled out if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." Y Done
  • The links to character pages within the episode summaries seem a little... random. Some characters are linked twice, some not at all, and some supporting characters (even Edward Mars) who don't even have their own page. Some are linked on their second mention, not their first, and I find it a little odd to see DriveSHAFT linked to its subsection on Charlie's page. Y Done
  • Not sure about this one, but it just reads a little strangely - in the Reception section, it "was nominated for..." but "would win..." If both (the nominations and awards) have happened, shouldn't they both be written in the same standard past tense - i.e. "it was nominated for..." and "it won..."? Hope all that helps. Y Done •97198 talk 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments, I have tried my best to fix everything you have pointed out. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, a {{done}} tag placed on the first point, but no change - don't worry, it's done now :) ; some links removed per the second point - I got rid of the rest; and per the third point I fixed an extra "would be nominated" statement. I still do think the episode summaries could be smartened up a bit - I might take a bash at that if (a) I can find the time and (b) no one else beats me to it! •97198 talk 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Informative, thorough, and meets FL criteria. -- Wikipedical 21:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This list fails WP:EPISODES. All episodes except pilot are not notable enough to have their own article. This is where 1a3 criterion of WP:WIAFL comes in. They basically contain plot and trivia, so they should be redirected to this page. I learned all this stuff from here. You may find more explanation from there--Crzycheetah 03:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe so, but the individual episode articles have nothing to do with the quality of this list. -- Wikipedical 03:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This list offers links to non-notable articles thus, reducing its quality. They should be delinked.--Crzycheetah 04:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • So please clarify, what fails WP:EPISODES- the list or the episodes. We are talking about whether this list meets FL criteria. Is it not useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed? I would urge you to reconsider your reason for opposing the list based on these criteria. -- Wikipedical 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
        • And what about List of Lost episodes? It passed an FLC less than 2 months ago - after the more stringent WP:FICT concerns were defined. As well, the majority of the pages for The Simpsons (season 2) are in no better shape, but you supported its promotion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• This list contains links to non-notable articles; therefore, it fails #2 of WP:WIAFL by not complying with the standards set out in the relevant WikiProjects, in this case WP:EPISODES. The episodes should be redirected to this list AND the links to episodes in this list should be removed. In other words, in order for this list to be featured it needs to get rid of all those links to the non-notable episode articles.
  Scorpion0422, I explained the situation of the List of Lost episodes in your talk page yesterday. The Lost episodes contain plot only while the Simpsons episodes are far more developed.--Crzycheetah 00:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Lost episodes list was promoted 2 months ago, after the WP:FICT guidelines were redefined. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment While I do think this list is good, I would like to see it perfect before I support. I will work on it some more. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support All right, I cut it down by 6000 kilobytes. As for the episodes failing guidelines, we are getting there – to improving them. We already have one FA and another with out-of-universe information. I think that it is a good idea to cover the season pages first, as more people will be seeing them. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 06:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)