Talk:Confidence Man (Lost)

Fair use rationale for Image:LOST108.jpg

Image:LOST108.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 01:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Newyorkadam: Hi. Some comments:

• The infobox image is very blurry and not high-quality. Are there any more clear screenshots that you could grab of that scene?

It has to be low-quality to qualify as fair-use. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Image_resolution says "There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger." It was originally a higher-quality screenshot (by me), but was reduced by a bot.

• "a few reviewers discussed aspects of it that they felt did not blend in well" I think that substituting "the episode" for "it" would be clearer.

Y

• Are these redlinks in the synopsis really necessary? What reason do you have to think they're helpful?

 Removed, but I generally support redlinks because I think they support Wikipedia's growth

• "The episode also shows the moral ambiguity of some characters by revealing more of their personalities, with the ones introduced as protagonists doing things that are generally not viewed as protagonist-like– an example being Jack beating Sawyer and eventually asking Sayid to torture him; and an antagonistic character, Sawyer, proving not to be solely antagonist-like– an example being his backstory and flashback, which show that he is not exclusively evil." This sentence is a mess—please rework it. Also, are these examples in your source?

I think it reads pretty well, it may be long, but the punctuation (in my opinion) makes it clear. No, these examples are not in the source, so it seems to be original research (albeit true). Do you think they should be removed?

• Once again, assuming that your whole paragraph is cited to one footnote, I would ref name it and pepper it in a few places in the paragraph, particularly after quotes.

Y

• "During the first few episodes, the lowest-testing characters (in terms of who the audience liked)". This is clunky, especially because you put "lowest-testing", a likely unfamiliar term, first. Might I suggest "Sawyer and Jin-Soo Kwon (Daniel Dae Kim) were the least liked characters during the first few episodes,…"

Y

• "The episode ends with a montage…" This reads a bit informal—maybe "The episode ends with a montage of various characters performing different actions…"

Changed to "The episode ends with a montage of various characters performing different activities"

• For the bit about the lyric, I would specify that a reviewer made this remark--otherwise, it sounds a bit like OR.

Y Added "..., and, according to reviewer Therese Odell from the Houston Chronicle, ..."

• Is the Ryan McKinnie redlink necessary?

 Removed

BenLinus1214^talk 01:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'll get to this soon. I've had a busy week. -Newyorkadam (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

It's all good. I understand that people are busy sometimes. BenLinus1214^talk 23:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@BenLinus1214: Sorry for the delay, I made the changes. Thanks. -Newyorkadam (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Okay. Pass. BenLinus1214^talk 01:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Confidence Man (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/20150310233935/http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-guide/season-01/108-Confidence-Man to http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-guide/season-01/108-Confidence-Man

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)