Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lost (TV series)/archive1

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 06:16, 30 August 2010 [1].

Lost (TV series)

Review commentary

Featured article review/Lost (TV series)/archive1

Notified: SergeantBolt, WikiProject Lost

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel it is lacking in 1b and 1c. The reception section does not cover the final season and needs to be expanded, and there are numerous unsourced claims throughout the article. The Music section is mainly dedicated to listing popular songs that have been used, even though the TV Project's MOS list it as something to avoid. The only context presented for the music is original research. The article was promoted in 2006, and has not been reviewed since. Ω phois 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding criterion three issues:
- File:Lost title card.jpg - Mere text is not eligible for copyright protection; image should be re-licensed accordingly.
  - 96 dpi is not a low resolution image. --JJ98 (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What does that have to do with the above comment? Эlcobbola _talk 17:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Title cards are subject to copyright. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No. Not Always A work is not eligible by virtue of being a "title card", but by virtue of being an original work of authorship. Works without sufficient originality to pass the threshold of originality, or that are useful articles, are not eligible for copyright protection under USC 17. From the United States Copyright Office: "names, titles, short phrases, slogans, familiar symbols, mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, coloring, and listings of contents or ingredients are not subject to copyright". (emphasis mine) Эlcobbola _talk 22:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- File:Main characters of Lost.jpg - No source (WP:IUP/NFCC#6/NFCC#10A); No detailed/specific rationale (NFCC#10C); Not minimal extent of usage (NFCC#3B) - why is it necessary to see "all twenty-eight main cast members of the series, plus three significant recurring cast members and a dog" (I count 27)? No apparent significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8) - why is the physical appearance of the characters relevant? No apparent meaningful or unique consuming or makeup in this image.
  - 1159 x 341 is not a low resolution image, but 72 dpi is a low resolution image. --JJ98 (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jackfigurelost.jpg - No rationale; No significant contribution to our understanding. Эlcobbola _talk 16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~ Comments - this should have happened a long time ago. The article has not been updated in a long time, and some sections are suffering as a result. The article need better referencing, updated information, and an overall copyedit. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 02:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it; we don't say "delist" just yet. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; thanks for clarifying. I just assumed that this process was similar to GAR. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some problems I saw:

Second and final paragraphs of "Cast" are unsourced.
"Production" and "Distribution" headers have subheaders immediately underneath. Is this allowed? I think it looks ugly.
Last paragraph of "Filming" is unsourced.
Second paragraph of "Music" is overly detailed listcruft as already mentioned. No need to list every song the series has used.
Tons of [citation needed]s in the Fandom header, and more under Distribution.
~~Is TV Shows on DVD a reliable source?~~

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV Shows on DVD is considered a reliable source and in my experience is often used in FA's. Ω phois 03:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Were these issues brought up on the talk page first before being brought to FAR? Lambanog (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but that is not a requirement for FAR. There are numerous issues in the article, and there has never been a review conducted since its promotion three years ago. Ω phois 16:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are original research, sourcing and comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per review by Ophois, Elcobbola and TenPoundHammer. Above concerns not addressed. JJ98 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Concerns not addressed. Эlcobbola _talk 14:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per the citation issues I highlighted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my previous delist. ;) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 09:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies to SD6-Agent. (He began this article, by the way.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per concerns highlighted above, which haven't been addressed.--Beloved Freak 17:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.