Wikipedia:Peer review/Lost (TV series)/archive2

Lost (TV series)

Previous peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lost (TV series)/archive1

The article has improved significantly since its previous review seven months ago. With an aim towards reaching FA quality, several editors have suggested it was time to request additional peer insight. Now that the second season of the show has concluded, the article has stablised, and has no serious content disputes. It is now very well-sourced, more than comparable to other TV series articles which have reached Featured status, e.g.:

• Doctor_Who
• The_West_Wing_(TV_series)
• The_Office_(US_TV_series)
• Arrested_Development.

As a long-time editor on the article, I'll be presumptive and say that we would welcome any suggestions for further improvements or additions which can be made. --Leflyman^Talk 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just some comments (Slof 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)):

• My comments interspersed--Leflyman^Talk 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• • If you notice the "Awards" and "Characters" section of those listed featured articles, they are attempted differently than that of Lost's sections. This article simply has a list of nominations and wins; this seems to ruin the flow of the overall article. Basically, convert the list, or most of it (similar to Arrested Development's section), into paragraphs. The "Cast and characters" section (which should become just "Characters" with a "Casting" subsection) should also do pretty much the same.

• The list of awards has been compressed into a shortened paragraph, which now follows Ratings. It could actually be expanded slightly, now that the new Emmy nominations have come out, but I'll leave that to the discretion of other editors. I've not yet looked at converting the cast section into prose; I'm hesitant to tackle it, as Lost features such a exceptionally large cast, and I'm not as familiar with how the series was cast as perhaps some others.

• • Per lead section guidelines, the lead section should contain more paragraphs. For a show of high universal caliber like Lost (or at least the size of the Lost article demonstrates that), there can definitely be more to the lead section than as of now.

• The "background" section has been combined with the initial paragraph, as they naturally flowed into each other.

• • There are two citations needed that, well, need citing.

• Not any more :) The unverifiable one has been removed, and the other cited; a new one has shown up, which I hope the editor who added it will provide a source for.

• • "The streaming of Lost episodes via ABC's website is currently only available to viewers in the United States"
    "In issue #6 of Marvel's current The Thing series..."
    "The Canadian punk/rock group Moneen features a song on their new album The Red Tree ..."
    -- These phrases do not heed Wikipedia's Manual of Style in that they contain words ("currently", "current", "new") signifying an unspecific time. The words in the first and third phrases can simply be deleted, although I am not knowledgeable about the time stance on the second statement.
  • Moreover, the extensive use of "new" needs to be deprecated.

• I've removed or altered the relative-time specific words in the above; however some uses of "new" are unavoidable, such as in "fellow new series", "new television distribution methods", "new episodes".

• • Put a space between these two sentences: "The trial, expected to last from May to June 2006, has caused a stir among network affiliates who fear being cut out of advertising revenue.The streaming of Lost episodes via ABC's website is currently only available to viewers in the United States."

• Done.

• • For the "In the news" subsection in "Lost in popular culture":
    • When did Numbers air? At least, state what year it premiered, depending on...

• Done.

• • • Did this happen after the U.S. airing, the U.K., etc.?
    • "many people" is non-NPOV.

• How many qualify as "many"? Actually, I think the original wording was "numerous" but that sounded like a bit of a pun.

• • • The reference for "by October, thousands had tried them for the multi-state Powerball lottery" does not support the statement made and renders "thousands" a hyperbolic number.

• Powerball is played in 27 states (and Washington, DC). The 840 figure in the first source is a count of five of the participating states. I added an additional reference with quotes from more states.

• • The "on television" and "on print" subsections should have references for each of its statements; this should not be too stressing as the "references" are technically in the statements theirselves.

• I'm not sure I agree here with the need to have a citation for every single statement, as including a particular broadcast date or issue number, is the reference in and of itself. Having said that, I did add a reference to the Thing #6. This article already has significantly more footnote references (57 at last count) than nearly any other similar one. (Compare to Doctor Who with 16, or West Wing (TV series) with 32.)

• • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article.
  • The category "Lost" should probably be higher in the category list, should it not?
  • "Lost's pilot episode was the most expensive in the network's history, reportedly costing between $10 and $14 million." --Put "USD" into the price part of the sentence.

• Done.

• • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents seems too long. In my opinion, I suggest editors should make a "Themes and other characteristics" section or similiar (like Arrested Development's page) and place the items from "Episode structure", "Thematic motifs" and "Mythology" into the section; "Filming location" might also be able to enter the section, but it can stay put probably. Also consider changing the "Thematic motifs" title into "Symbolism", "Use of symbology", etc. However, you can also use summary style to create subpages for "Thematic motifs" and "Mythology" (these two seem to be more than begging for it), then create a succinct paragraph or two for the sections on the original Lost article.

• I'm not so sure the TOC is actually "too long" -- as stated at WP:WIAFA, an article should have "a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents", which I believe this TOC to be. I'm partial to "Thematic motifs" as a heading, since that term more accurately describes the usage of such elements in the story -- plus, the section does not describe "symbolism" and would teeter even further into Original Research, if it were reoriented to "explain" what the supposed symbols might be. The language there is carefully construed to try to be as neutral to making claims as possible. A subpage for the Thematic Motifs might not be a bad idea; however a fear of many long-term editors would be that (like so many of Lost's sub-pages) a purely "theoretic" article would become an even greater magnet for fancruft -- we already have to regularly prune the latest speculative injections by well-meaning fans. (See the extensive discussions at Talk:Lost (TV series).

• • A few references need inline citations.
  • Remember that the Nielsen Ratings used are not spot on (far from it). For the most part, the article notes that, except for "Lost's second season premiere was even stronger: pulling over 23 million viewers, setting a series record." A better reference might be able to clarify this statement.

• I'm with you on the Nielsen's not being an accurate measure, however, it's the one that is accepted by the industry and media, and is the basis of advertising revenue-- until someone can figure out a better/more exact method of counting viewership, the Nielsen numbers are the ones we have to go by.

• • "Discredited theories" needs to be deprecated or placed into "Mythology".

• It was included to recognize that Lost generates a great deal of speculation. Initially, some editors attempted to include examples of fan theories, which we removed as (obviously) original research. The section is a compromise to provided sources debunking some of the more outlandish theories, which were specifically brought up by the series' creative team.

• • The placement of the sections hurt its flow. My suggestion (which also takes the previous comments into account) is to go for: Background, Characters, Season synopses, Filming location, Distribution, Music, Themes and other characteristics, Ratings, Awards, Licensed merchandise, In other media, In popular culture, References and External links.

• I moved the sections to improve the flow, specifically because some fans are afraid of "spoilers" (which includes cast lists). Hence, the first section is information about the series, as a whole: it's creation, ratings, locations, etc. This is followed with information about the story: characters, themes, mythology. The Popular culture, merchandising, etc. are left for the end, as it is more in keeping with "trivia" (which it might be noted this article does not include a separate section for.)

• Thank you, those are all great comments; I have some minor disagreements with some of the suggestions, but I'll leave that to other editors for input.--Leflyman^Talk 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adhering to most of my comments and suggestions and I can understand your disagreements--that's fine, I'm not a stickler. Slof 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 00:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)