Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meet Kevin Johnson

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:23, 31 December 2008 [1].

Meet Kevin Johnson edit

Nominator(s): –thedemonhog talk • edits

This feaured topic good article from the Lost WikiProject is about a television episode of the fourth season of Lost. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded 02:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-editor of the article. Transcluded because tdh forgot to. A few notes before I get to bed: length is fine (40KB; are you trying to break my record of 74KB? ;) ). Split into sub-sections nicely. Think you could spice up the reception paragraph? They're often boring. I tried to do mine with The Stolen Earth by using blockquotes and images to give readers pauses. Sceptre (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that it matters, but just after creating it, I thought of a couple more sentences and pictures that I could add to the article so I hesitated from transcluding it to WP:FAC, but thought that if someone found it, they could transclude it. It is not standard practice and my motives are strange, but whatever. What I did completely forget when writing up the nomination was to give credit to Sceptre for providing the foundations for the plot, reception and lead sections, when I had left my first message in months on his talk page just a couple hours earlier! –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I will review this article before the FAC closes, but not right now. I'll come in around the midgame and offer some suggestions. Sceptre (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Images:
  • First impressions:
    • Per POV concerns, Critical response should encompass all reviews; the positive and negative actions should not be segregated out.
    • " American Broadcasting Company's" in the lead; can we shorten this to ABC? Otherwise it makes the intro a bit of a mouthful.
    • "The episode's broadcast date was heavily influenced by the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike " suggests that the content of the episode was influenced by the strike, but the rest of the sentence implies it caused scheduling issues; was it both or the latter? Make clearer.
    • While I'm not going to go oppose until I've given a thorough look at the prose, I'm concerned about 1a issues such as convoluted sentences. (" Watros was given star billing in the second season;[6] however, she became the first main cast member to not receive an episode with flashbacks from her character's perspective; she did appear in flashbacks of other characters' episodes.[7]")

Please reply to all comments in a block below, so that I can easily keep track of responses. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some changes. I used to simply use "ABC", but then Tony pointed out that there could be confusion with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I suppose that's a valid reason for keeping ABC spelled out then. The changes look good, but I would recommend getting an experienced copyeditor to run through and massage the prose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request made to Casliber. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
…and rejected. I have asked sgeureka. See also Sceptre's edit. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link to copyedit. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to add some more information and look over the prose around the end of today (UTC) and then asks commenters to return to this FAC. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • I've said it before and I'll say it again, I find the pictures too small. I know you prefer it like this; I'm just pointing it out. And is the Emmy picture really needed? Now that we have the others, I find it to be just filler. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a problem with filler pictures. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the description of the Emmy actually says it is presumably fake, I don't really see the purpose of including it (the caption doesn't make this clear, either). Awadewit (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Adwadewit here; the caption is inane in any case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have desized the images per WP:MOS#Images. Awadewit (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SyFy Portal says that "News [on the website] that has been [previously] released through official channels about a certain topic"[2]. The BBC,[3] Digital Spy,[4], SCI FI,[5][6] and Comic Book Resources[7] have cited them. The second site is the web version of the print magazine Geek Monthly.[8] Here's an article from a reliable source on them/it.[9] –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. I'll note that the BBC link you provided just shows that they are saying that SyFy portal is reporting some information, not necessarily showing that BBC trusts the information. The first SciFi link just shows that they state that SyFy portal reported on the fan reaction. I'd like to see a bit more usage from mainstream media, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source changed to more reliable one. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some comments (hopefully useful ones)
    • A bracketed "M.C. Gainey" seems to be missing upon Tom's first mention.
    • The eighth of sixteen ordered scripts—"Meet Kevin Johnson"—was completed - not very easy to read becuase of the dashes. How about "The eighth of sixteen ordered scripts, 'MKJ' was completed..." or "'MKJ', the eighth of sixteen ordered scripts, was completed..."?
    • Sayid, appalled of his employment - could just be me, but I've never heard "appalled of" as part of regular speech... usually "appalled by/at".
    • it doesn't close out the way our previous ones have ended - "our previous [whats]" - seasons?
    • the nonexistence of a script for the next episode courtesy of the strike - the use of the word "courtesy" here is somewhat sarcastic... I'm not sure if it's the best word to use.
    • Only the first three sentences under the Filming section seem to fit under that heading... and perhaps Harold Perrineau's "butt-busting" comment. ;)
    • with the broadcast of "Something Nice Back Home".[54] 1.421 million Canadians watched it - the use of "it" instead of the title or "the episode" here seems as if SNBH is the "it".
  • Good work, as usual. —97198 (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Guess I'll be the first, then. :) —97198 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs for now.

  • The plot section begins very in universe.
  • I'm one of those rare individuals who has never seen an episode of Lost and I am left in the dark with this plot summary. Can a small bit of background be added so that those of who who don't normally follow the show can figure out what is going on?
    • To me, this just feels like a mix of too much detail (why do we care how he paid for the gun?) and not enough background. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information about when to tell Libby's story seemed a bit detailed to me. Do we need to know all of that information in this article?
    • I think most of this information would belong better in the article about Libby (if it is not already there). It just doesn't add much to our understanding of this article. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sentences that contain a quotation should have a citation at the end. This may mean that citations are repeated in subsequent sentences. This occurs multiple times throughout the article
  • I'm not familiar with this phrase "The show runners "
  • This is an opinion presented as fact - "The flashback portion of "Meet Kevin Johnson" is the greatest in Lost history"; the article needs to attribute (in text) who thinks this was the greatest
  • The writing section seemed to me to be a bit of a mismash. It has both information about the physical writing and scheduling and then a lot of information explaining the various plot points. To me (unfamiliar with most other tv episode articles), these two types of info don't go together. Also, much of the explanation of the plot points seems meandering. I am not sure whether there is too much unnecessary detail or if there is just not enough transition between the different points. (Some of it might be able to be moved to plot summary)
    • This is better...but it still feels a bit repetitive to me, as some of the info is already in the plot summary. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three paragraphs of the Editing section do not flow well together at all. These are three very different ideas kind of jammed together with no transitions.
  • The ratings section tone is a bit off. At first, it makes it seem like this would be a very highly watched episode, and the numbers given seem high (but are relatively meaningless without a comparison). Then after all that we find out that this was the lowest rated episode. Perhaps the first half of the first sentence should be combined with the news that it was nevertheless the lowest-rated episode. Then go on to discuss the numbers of viewers.
  • "A common complaint was made " - passive voice, needs attribution. Made by whom?

Karanacs (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"…the greatest in Lost history". Ha ha, I meant greatest in size. Lost is heavily serialized and while it would be possible to give some more background in the plot, it would likely be longer than intended, not to mention that readers are probably familiar with Lost and are able to refresh their memories via other articles. Libby's story is detailed and it could be cut down, but I would rather that it stay in this article until she makes her next appearance—if she returns—at which point, it could be moved. As far as I know, the only episode article longer than this is The Stolen Earth, so there is not much precedent for how writing and editing sub-sections should structured. (Perhaps we should look to film articles.) I believe that I have addressed all other points. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you have moved the awards info, the Emmy picture is out of place. It should be moved to the awards section, or (hopefully) removed. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the structure of the ratings section not better? –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ratings section has been changed a little, the Libby paragraph has been condensed, background has been added to the plot and the editing section might be getting the axe. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Through the Looking Glass (Lost) (one you wrote!) and Trapped in the Closet (South Park) are about 4KB longer. Anyway, my suggestions are coming, probably tommorow. Sceptre (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going by readable prose. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, my comments:
    • "The episode begins on December 26, 2004, over three months after the crash of Oceanic Airlines 815, on a freighter offshore of the island where 815 crashed." -> "The episode begins on December 26, 2004, over three months after the crash of Oceanic Airlines 815. The majority of the episode takes place on the Kahana, a freighter moored offshore of the island where the plane crashed." could be better, but is still worded a bit awkwardly (sorry).
    • I have to join the opposition to the Emmy statuette, because the image description does say it's probably a fake...
  • That's pretty much all I can think about right now. Sorry for hyping this up and disappointing you with a crappy review. Sceptre (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. With the removal of that horrid picture, I am willing to support (and had been meaning to for a while now). Just a closing comment; I would remake the awards section under reception, and move the editing awards there. The awards are not really part of the production of the episode, they are a sign of how the episode was received. While I understand why you placed that info there, I would recommend moving it back. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support. As I said before, remake the awards section under reception, and move the editing awards there. The awards are not really part of the production of the episode, they are a sign of how the episode was received. While I understand why you placed that info there, I would recommend moving it back. Please reply so I can change back to support. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to Support now. :D Very nice work. (Hehe, being bold was fun.) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean support. There is something off, but I can't just place it. Maybe its the lack of an external links section that just throws me off? I don't know. Second paragraph of Plot, first of Casting, and second of Writing could be split. Some wording seems just a tad off (but no suggestion on how to fix). Example: "after the second season finale, primarily his recruitment aboard the freighter Kahana as a spy for Ben Linus (Michael Emerson)." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Very minor things

  • "During production of the fourth season finale, the writers asserted that while they had failed to shed light on the character's past in the past season" is a bit bleugh, with "past" being used twice. Does "past season" refer to the fourth, in which case would something like "current" be better, or the third season?
  • "(Lost would have begun broadcasting a week earlier with its extra episode)" -- "would have" makes it sound like there should be an "except blah blah blah..." tacked onto the end of this sentence

Otherwise I enjoyed reading it. :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, the "past" sentence is better. As for the second issue: I thought about rewording it and then decided that it was redundant enough to get rid of it altogether.  :) –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status update: There are three support votes from 97198, Cornucopia and Ottava Rima, although Ottava Rima thinks that something is off. Karanacs is opposing; he would like some section restructing and removal and thinks that the plot section should be written more for the reader who has not seen Lost but does notice the "random article" button or the article link in some Wikipedia directory, e.g. WP:FA. I understand her concerns, but I ultimately disagree with her proposals. User:Sceptre also supports the current structure. Awadewit and Ealdgyth respectively had problems with images and sourcing, but these have since been resolved. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs left some comments, but is sick and busy in real life and unable to give an update on whether his comment that has not been striked is still valid (that the article needs a copyedit). The article has been copyedited: compare the article at the start of the FAC to its present state. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Generally well-written (begs the question as to why the writing skills aren't put to a deeper topic—how rude I am). I've made a few trivial edits at the top (revert any you don't like). The strike link is a little awkward—I played with it to avoid the blue–black grammatical bump and to minimise the blue via piping, but ended up not doing so. Past-tense inconsistencies in the plot? "the gun jams and does not kill him" need rewording, since it couldn't have killed him after jamming. ", but this, too, is unsuccessful, because the gun jams".? ""Meet Kevin Johnson" contains the first appearance of ..."—oh dear ("features", perhaps?). "Killed off"—does that mean murdered on-screen or just written out of the story? (I'm unsure.) "tell her tale" ("tale" is old-fashioned). "Also" is a very strong back-connector, but has to leap over a para break. I haven't read beyond this; it could still do with a little smartening up by a new editor, and I presume you'll do this before and/or after its promotion. (No need to ping me.) Tony (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each of those has been reworded. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Neutral Oppose. [Switched to neutral; still reviewing but everything significant I have found has now been fixed.] [Now switched to weak support; I think the prose could still be improved, but that's true of almost every article.] I found the article quite confusing, to the point that I did not finish reading it. I've never seen the show and know almost nothing about it; all I knew was that the plot revolves around some people who are marooned somewhere. I have concerns about context and prose. Some points that concerned or confused me as I read:

  • The lead doesn't give even the most basic information about the overall plot of the series as context for the reader. Even a half-sentence mentioning that the characters are marooned would be useful.
  • The mention of the second-season finale in the lead is baffling and requires a click-through before an uninformed reader can go on.
  • The "flashback" appears to be after Michael leaves the island and returns to New York. Isn't that a flash-forward?
  • The "Other who abducted Walt": what is an "Other"? Not even a link this time, though I think some kind of inline explanation is necessary.
  • The Island won't "allow" Michael to kill himself? The Island is sentient? By now I'm completely baffled.
  • I was unaware that there are factions of some kind among the protagonists until I got to the word "infiltrate". I think a little more explanation is needed there.
  • A couple of prose points: "his position to not kill innocents" is a clumsy phrase; is "position" the right word? "season and a half-long absence": might want to hyphenate that all the way through, or rephrase; "appalled by his employment by Ben": do you mean "exploitation"?
  • The casting section spends a great deal of time on the delays to Libby's planned story. Is this really the right article for that? I'm afraid I stopped reading partway through this section so I apologize if I am missing a connection you make later, but it did seem rather a lot of detail for this particular episode.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All but a couple of those have been dealt with. There is a link to the article and an explanation on the Others earlier in the article now. The island's powers are not further explained. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The extra material in the lead is very useful; thank you. There's now a little confusion in the lead over just when the episode starts -- should it be "The episode starts one month later, when Michael reappears..."? I've struck some points above. I will read the rest of the article and comment again, tonight if possible. Mike Christie (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More changes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck most of the remaining points above, though if you can find a better way to tell a new reader that yes, the island really does have some kind of consciousness, that would be good. Reading the rest of the article I was happy to find it much easier to negotiate. I have some more comments; I'll outdent for them. Feel free to intersperse your responses if you prefer.
  • How about starting the second paragraph of the plot section with "The flashback begins with Michael and his son..."? It took me so much effort to figure out the timeline that I think it would be good to help the reader along at the key transition points.

-- More later this evening; family responsibilities call. Mike Christie (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I am not doing that is because when the flashback starts, Michael is driving into a car crash, i.e. the flashback begins after he and Walt get back to the real world and then back to New York and after he tells Walt what happened and after Walt goes to live with his grandmother (and after Michael gets a haircut). All of that is filled in through dialogue later in the episode (and the season). –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This sounds more complicated the more I learn about it. More below; I can see that with a long-running complex plot it's simply impossible to recap all relevant plot history for each episode, but the plot related points below are things I felt were a problem even so. Mike Christie (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'reminding them of George Minkowski's death (Fisher Stevens) in "The Constant"': a couple of things here. First, it would be better to recast this to have "(Fisher Stevens)" directly follow the character name; perhaps "reminding them of the death of George Minkowski (Fisher Stevens)"? Second, it's not clear what the relevance of those deaths is -- if they also died after deserting the parallel should be drawn for the reader. (Even some Lost fans may not have seen that particular episode.) Third, I think that using the episode name as you do is a viewpoint flicker; we are more or less "in universe" for the plot description, but episode names are not in-universe. I would think it would be better to have the description use in-universe time, and separate it (e.g. parenthetically) from any episode reference: maybe "reminding them of the recent death of Minkowski (in the episode "The Constant")"? However you solve it, it seems jarring to me as it stands.
  • I'm confused about who owns/captains the freighter. Is it Gault or Widmore? Is Widmore on the freighter? From the later mention in the plot section of a war it seems Widmore is the owner and is Gault's superior. If so, could the conflict between the Others and Widmore be mentioned at the first mention of the Kahana, in the first Plot para? E.g. "on the Kahana, a freighter moored offshore of the island where the plane crashed; the Kahana is owned by Widmore, who is at war with the Others".
  • "appalled by his association with Ben": by Michael's association? I didn't follow that first time through; I thought Sayid had been associated with Ben and was now regretting it. I see the internal logic now I understand the plot better but I still think the sentence could do with some disambiguation.
  • Why is "Barracks" capitalized?
  • "John Locke ... meets with his faction": I can't tell if Locke is a survivor or an Other from this, since Ben is apparently an Other and is there. Hence I don't know if this is a faction of the survivors or of the Others. I also don't know what "confirms the identity of his spy" means; there's been no mention of a spy and I've no idea who he's referring to.
  • I would suggesting changing the caption of the picture of Watros to make it clear that this is Watros as herself, not in character. Maybe "Cynthia Watros, who left in the second season finale'; or even mention caption that she is the actress who plays Libby. Picture captions are one of the things that casual readers will glance at, so it's good to avoid any risk of misdirection.
  • I think "show runner/co-creator/executive producer/head writer" and the similar string of nouns a few lines below it are not easily digested. Since Lindelof and Cuse aren't the focus here, wouldn't it be possible to simplify this slightly, perhaps referring only to the roles relevant to the comments you quote?
  • "Having decided for some time that Karl would eventually die, they pinpointed the episode": "for some time" works better with continuing actions, whereas "having decided" is a completed action. Either "The writers had been considering for some time" or "Having decided some time ago" would work grammatically, though I'm not sure if they're precisely what you want to say.

-- That's all I have time for this evening. I'm going to have to let my oppose stand as I do keep finding more concerns. I will do my best to get through the rest of the article tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most issues have been addressed. The Barracks is treated as a proper noun/place name within the show. I reworded the bit on Minkowski so that it seems more conclusive, but I would rather not elaborate on Minkowski's story, which is: a week before "Meet Kevin Johnson", Minkowski and his friend Brandon went out from the freighter in a raft in an attempt to explore the island, but because they did not travel on a specific bearing, Brandon went crazy and they had to return to the freighter, where Brandon died. Minkowski's consciousness became "unstuck in time" (as Brandon's had, but slower) and he began to experience past parts of his life with his present-day consciousness, while blacking out in the present-day. Minkowski was unable to find something that was familiar in both times and eventually suffered a brain aneurysm. And a lot of that occurred off-screen. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments, through the end of the Production section:

  • Is there a special reason for including "Liz" in 'Elizabeth "Liz" Sarnoff'? That form of her name is not used elsewhere in the article; you just call her "Elizabeth".
  • "so stifling hot … [at] about 105 °(F [40 °C])": I think this is technically correctly quoted but quite distracting to read; it would be better to take this out of quotes so that you can more easily give the units. Similarly with ""twin twenty four foot [seven meter]".
  • Why is it worth including the use of "It's Getting Better"? The internal reference, or echo, between scenes that the reuse of the song provides seems a fairly thin thread to hang a lit-crit term like "diegesis" on. It seems a bit of trivia as it stands; does the source you're using make any specific comment about this that makes it more interesting?
  • "achieved a fifth-place 4.6/12 in the coveted adults aged eighteen to forty-nine demographic": what does the "12" indicate? The linked source doesn't seem to explain it, unless I missed something.
  • Can you tell me if there are any guidelines covering what sources are worth quoting in reviews? The Star-Ledger and Huffington Post seems to me to be in a different category from the San Francisco Chronicle and Entertainment Weekly, for example. I think you've avoided quoting from any truly minor media outlets, but I was wondering if there is a guideline for WP:TV or a similar project that covers this. Mike Christie (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes were made for the first two comments. I think that the 4.6/12 does not mean too much to the average reader and if it does, then the reader already knows what it means. The significance of the music is that another song by the same artist was heavily featured in the second season, so it is kind of trivial. Should it be removed (along with the section)? The Star-Ledger is actually completely in the same league as the SF Chronicle and EW.[10] The closest thing that we have for a guideline for those is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Reception. My rule is to only include reviews by those who have an article about them on Wikipedia. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - There shouldn't be spelling errors this late into the FAC, [11] and some parts are really difficult to understand. See these for example:

When Michael tries to detonate a provided bomb and discovers that it is a fake, Ben contacts Michael by radio and explains that the trick illustrated his position to not kill innocents in his war against Widmore, referring to the death of Ana Lucia and Libby.
Instead of being intercut with scenes from the main ongoing plot, the flashbacks of "Meet Kevin Johnson" are presented continuously and are only bookended by present-day scenes.

And, there are others. I don't think I should have to read sentences two or three times in an article about a TV series. This is not Quark. Graham Colm Talk 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no more spelling errors and the sentences that you have pointed to have been rewritten. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have left two messages on her talk page—one days before her last edit on December 19. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status update: We have four supports and one oppose. I think that at least some of the concerns from the oppose ("for now") have been addressed, but karanacs is not responding to my two messages, although she has returned from her break in editing. One of the supports is attached to a few proposals for change, but I disagree with them and they are apparently not enough to warrant an oppose (or even a neutral) vote. It would be really nice if this was promoted in 2008 (UTC), but I much prefer letting it go into 2009 if my alternatives are restarting and/or archiving. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Meet_Kevin_Johnson&oldid=1216962514"