Talk:One of Us (Lost)/GA1

GA 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)