Talk:One of Us (Lost)

Untitled

• It's an Episode of Lost, and like all Episodes. Not all the information has been gathered. So why is this up for deletion? augrunt 06:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC) (Keep)
• Keep, whoever added the {deletion} tag has provided no valid reasons for delection.Pyrotec
• This article clearly needs some revision. Comments like "wow, is this a threat.." should not be in a WP article, even if it is "just" a plot summary. Also the punctuation could need some improvement, usually there is a whitespace between sentences. ;)

Wait if you looke at the screens in the FLame it talks about the missing plane so people back in the US know they are missing.--70.189.175.84 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Which didn't make sense. Unless it took HOURS for Ben and Juliet to get to Mikhail's. The pilot (in the Pilot) said they lost their radio and turned back to Fiji...going down on The Island less than an hour or two later. If so, at the time Ben and Juliet saw 815 crash and went to The Flame, only an hour or two AT MOST would have passed. The Australians nor Americans would have likely reported a flight delayed by an hour to the media and the media get the story on the air in such a short time.

Also, not sure what technical resources Mikhail has at his disposal, but it seemed pretty quick for him to be "already working on" getting Ben "detailed files on every passenger", since the passenger manifest would require him hacking the Oceanic Airlines mainframe AND Australian Customs, downloading a list of passengers, and then trying to match up every "James Ford" who was an American and whose passport was abroad in Australia(IF "Sawyer" even travelled under his own name...the manifest reflecting what the passenger had on their passport or ID).24.176.65.22 13:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. I don't really get the point of your comment. Are you trying to say that the episode wasn't very realistic? If so, well I would say this is a minor issue. It's a TV show! What can you expect? Ok, scrap that. I would say the Others got the info quickly because, well, they're the Others. They have their ways. It shows they are smart people. You know, that kind of thing. — hippi ippi₊₊⁺⁺ 08:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I realize SOME "suspension of disbelief" is necessary (such as a huge island that is 'invisible'...even from GoogleEarth...hehe). But it (the scene in this episode with Ben, Juliet, and Mikhail) seemed like an after-thought to the original "Tale of Two Cities" episode where we saw The Others seeing the 815 crash. Similarly I think making Goodwin Juliet's lover was an after-thought as well, since there was no indication of it in "TOTC"24.176.65.22 13:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Who knows? It could be twist that the producers put in to surprise the audience. But if we're here to discuss the purpose of the scene like we are now, well, it's inappropriate discussion. This page isn't a forum. — hippi ippi₊₊⁺⁺ 14:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

well i was under the impression that we didnt know if people back in the mainlands knew they were missing.--70.189.175.84 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You do remeber that the Pilot said theyve had NO radio contact and they were flying in the wrong direction for a few hours? Thats why there would be stuff on the media!!! And mabey those complaning about the article should modify it?R0ck1t 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried adding to the trivia section last week after the show. Herarat Airlines, where Juliet drank the orange juice (the company name appears on the wall behind them), is an anagram for Earhart, as in Amelia Earhart, who might have crashed on a small island not far from Fiji, just like Oceanic 815 (nudgenudgewinkwink). But the next day, POOF, my little bit of trivia is gone. Plus I would never have put it in the plot summary as they're asking now. It would just add to their already too long gripe about the summary. Tangcameo 22:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)tangcameo

What is actually wrong in the article? It sounds okay to me. — hippi ippi₊₊⁺⁺ 03:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lost-OneOfUs.jpg

Image:Lost-OneOfUs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Normal oneofuscap-024.jpg

Image:Normal oneofuscap-024.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:One of Us (Lost)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   On the Island section, this sentence ---> "Kate, Sayid, Juliet, and Jack trek back to the beach camp", "trek back", sounds a bit off. Same section, "As they stop for the night", a comma is needed after night.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lead, a space is needed between "December 13th and December 15th 2004". Also, "th" in the dates should be removed, per here. In the Flashbacks section, "Left Behind" needs to be in quotation marks, per here. In the Production section, the link for "A Tale of Two Cities" needs to be fixed. Same thing for the Reception section, "Left Behind", "D.O.C.", and "Walkabout".

   Half-check. The episodes still need to be redirected to the correct article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   Is TV.com a reliable source?

   Alright, just wanted to know and check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I've did what you asked, and to answer your question, TV.com is not a reliable source for information, only the professional reviews and the episodes vital stats are reliable. -Music2611 (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I edited the article a bit. I changed the ratings info, previous references were not reliable, and removed a dead link. I also merged some paragraphs in the plot section: several, short paragraphs do not look good. Hope my edits helped. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Its fine, that works and makes the episode more readable. Thank you to both Cornucopia and Music2611 for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on One of Us (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://goldderbyforums.latimes.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1106078764/m/53610293

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on One of Us (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917100709/http://www.ugo.com/tv/lost-music to http://www.ugo.com/tv/lost-music
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gallifreyone.com/news-archives.php?id=4-2007

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:One of Us (Lost)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Plot is too long and needs to be trimmed by someone familiar with the series. The reception is also poor. There is only one review and it consists of a long quote. AIRcorn (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delisting per above. AIRcorn (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)