Talk:The Variable/GA1

GA Review

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

Great article for a good episode. Nice amount of detail! Here are my thoughts, please address each one individually...

Plot:

• Unfortunately, WP:MOSTV says an episode article plot summary should be between 200 and 500 words, and this is more like 600. I know Lost is a complex show, so if it's a bit over 500 I'll be OK with that, but could you try shortening it to closer to 500?
• (Also, as a means of shortening, perhaps you could start by just dropping the last names of the characters? In my The Office articles, I usually use just "Michael (Steve Carell)" instead of "Michael Scott (Steve Carell)", for example, and that seems to work...)

Production:

• It's not a major objection, but the "and features elements of time travel." bit at the end of the first sentence seems a bit tagged on. I'd say it could either be removed, or perhaps you could add a bit of context? Like "and, like most of the fifth season episodes, features elements of time travel."
• "Once we explained that to Jeremy, while he was personally saddened that his full-time status on Lost was coming to an end, he put the story above his own personal self." I think it would be better to break this out of the quote and incorporate it into the prose of the article, because the quote is getting a bit long. (If you want me to give it a try, let me know.)
• Please take a look at this grammatical change I made and let me know whether you're OK with it.
  • Yup, looks good. Thanks!

Reception:

• It's mentioned in your first source that this episode was up by 2.1 million viewers, and 34% in Adults 18-49, from the previous week's episode "Some Like It Hoth". I think this is worth including, what do you think?

• No, it was up 2.1 million viewers from the previous week's clip show episode, which I don't really think is worth mentioning.

I'll place it on hold in the meantime. Nice job! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 19:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! :) I think I've fixed everything, though I wasn't able to shorten the plot section down (it's impossible :P). TheLeftorium 20:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A good article is:

1. Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
4. Neutral: Yes.
5. Stable: Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Pass. Nice work! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 14:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! TheLeftorium 14:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)