Talk:Man of Science, Man of Faith/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ruby2010 talk 04:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review sometime in the next few days. Ruby2010 talk 04:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

The lead needs some more information about the episode's ratings Ruby2010 talk 00:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"While writing the season premiere, it was decided to pick up the hatch storyline..." - Who decided? The producers? Writers? Both? Ruby2010 talk 00:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Starting in this episode, the castaways start abandoning the caves, which the producers considered a location hard to film and not aesthetically good" - Describing it as "good" sounds odd, so perhaps reword? Ruby2010 talk 00:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

Perhaps had one or two more reviews of the episode? Ruby2010 talk 00:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

A few cases of vandalism, but nothing to be worried about. Ruby2010 talk 00:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I'm putting the article on hold for seven days while these minor issues get worked out. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 00:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing per my suggestions. Please also look at the suggestions below, as the user brought up some good points. Ruby2010 talk 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done those too. Anything else? igordebraga ≠ 01:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go. Passed for GA. I'm also a big Lost fan, so great work! :) Ruby2010 talk 01:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small nitpicking errors :)

There are a few faults to be found.

*Jack Shephard's struggles --> Jack Shephard's struggle

*which would later become his wife --> who would later....

*realtime --> either needs to be "real-time" or "real time"

*...decide to enter the now-open hatch shaft. --> decide to enter the, now open, hatch shaft. This also occurs again later on in the plot summary.

*Spinal cord injury could do with a link.

*the ability to walk is extremely unlikely. --> "would be extremely unlikely?" Make your own mind up on that one...

*During that he falls. Needs to be expanded in order to avoid confusion.

*search the jungle for Walt Lloyd's (Malcolm David Kelley) dog This is clunky. [Walt Lloyd|Walt]'s...?

*Then Locke appears --> Fine as a sentence, but it sounds more encyclopaedic as "Locke then appears"...

*when suddenly Kate realizes that there is something in there. Needs revision...

*rappels will probably need a link to abseiling, because I'm English and, it being Americanized, had to look up what it meant...

*but Locke then is revealed --> Locke is then...

*was frustrated at not revealing in the reception section, this doesn't make sense.

That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 18:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*The beginning of the plot mentions that Jack doesn't want to wait, but John wants to go in in the morning, roughly. Isn't that the other way around? Apologies if I'm simply reading wrong.