Talk:The Other Woman (Lost)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article The Other Woman (Lost) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on March 13, 2008.
March 12, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Other Woman (Lost) article.
Article policies
TV
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment comments
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.


[edit] Good Article Review

  • "seventy-fifth episode overall that was aired on March 6, 2008" - another exhausting TV marathon :-)

Plot:

  • Suggestion: It should be fairly easy to add a sense of time for when the individual flashback moments occured - 2001 and then October(?) 2004. This helps to give the "December 2004" date better context
  • The last three sentences of the first Plot paragraph sound like stop and go, and should be combined into two sentences
  • The focus of the sentence "In the jungle, Juliet is approached..." is somehow "off". It seems to switch between Juliet, Harper and a narrator.
  • "After they find her..." - who is "they"? (I know who, but the sentence doesn't make it really clear.)
  • The sentences about Daniel and the computer-typing are too detailed - at least one sentence can be removed there and it would still make sense
  • "Desmond Hume's (Henry Ian Cusick) girlfriend Penny's (Sonya Walger) father" -> the father of Desmond Hume's (Henry Ian Cusick) girlfriend Penny (Sonya Walger) - I don't think the genitive clause twice in a row is a good idea
  • "Ben hands over a file containing information..." - begin the sentence with "After", and the rest will fall into places (prose suggestion)

Production:

  • Mitchell said that "it emotionally draining - word missing
  • "until four in the morning" - add "o'clock" or something similar
  • the information about Ana Lucia sounds extremely pointless until later in the paragraph - consider putting the sentence "Juliet was conceived by the writers as the next possible love interest for Jack" before that (and do a quick rewrite) to give context for the Ana Lucia information
  • The last two sentences of the paragraph should be moved somewhere to the front of the paragraph. They currently appear like an afterthough, when in fact they would be ideal to get the reader into the mood for the paragraph
  • Too many quotes in that paragraph (but the information is good) - variety helps
  • generally: Every sentence seems to begin with the actors' or characters' names - some words like "After", "Although", "Nevertheless" or something usually help (prose suggestion if you want to take this to FAC)

Reception:

  • "When hyping the episode, Elizabeth Mitchell said..." this sentence does not really belong in the reception section, but rather (if at all) in the production section. Also, I think the word "hyping" is not exactly encyclopedic tone
  • Patrick Day of the Los Angeles Times called it "the weakest episode of the new season so far" -> this quote has no trademark feeling to it, so it shouldn't be quoted
  • the reviews seem to jump around a lot in opinion: weakest, so-so, 2nd weakest, subpar, Roth bad, enjoy, Roth good, awesome, not impressed, worst - group this
  • Suggestion (I don't know at this point whether this would make the article better or worse): move the reception information about the recurring/guest characters behind the claims of this being a Ben- instead of a Juliet episode. I think the Ben section is the juiciest of the whole section, so it shouldn't come so late.

Image FU rationales and the refs are good. I'll put this article on hold until the above concerns are reasonably addressed (within the next seven days). Concerns marked as suggestions are just peer-review-y suggestions and don't need to be addressed if you think they are bad or are un-actionable otherwise. Please consider reviewing another GAN as time permits, to keep the number of reviewed and to-be-reviewed articles balanced. – sgeureka t•c 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You may already know it (and this will of course not influence the GA nomination of this article) - Darlton have a new audio podcast [1] which may contain some more bits about the production. – sgeureka t•c 11:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Diff. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I know I was a big fan of the this-is-really-a-Ben-episode paragraph two days ago, but I now feel that the intro sentence of that paragraph already summarizes the following four sentences in a certain way. User:Fritter made a similar comment about Lost's reception section in general quite recently. This is not to say that I consider the reception sections of Lost episode articles bad, but that this is a fine suggestion to help get the articles to FA, even if (or especially since) this shortens the Reception sections to the real mentionworthy bits. The other changes were satisfactory, with a few minor things left that I would change, but there isn't anything major anymore to prevent the promotion of this article to GA. – sgeureka t•c 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Go ahead and make the changes that you believe should be made. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)