Talk:Lexa (The 100)

Better image?

The current infobox image, while serviceable, can be replaced with a clearer one where the character's face and hopefully outfit is under better light. Anyone that can access a higher-quality image that meets Wikipedia's image policy, please add it (or link it on the talk page first). Lapadite (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lapadite: Is the image here suitable to what you're looking for? -- Zoo (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer: Yes that's an excellent image for the infobox, if it has the appropriate license for WP use. Lapadite (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lapadite You can use the same license as the current image. It's considered a screenshot. -- Zoo (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lexa (The 100)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 12:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   Will carry out a source spotcheck

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

First things first

• The appearances section needs significant rewriting. Per WP:WAF, an "appearances" section must be concise and focused. The current section does not; it assumes the reader is already familiar with previous events in the show, and takes an episode-to-episode-retelling approach. Personally, I would have three sections (Season 2, Season 3, and Later seasons), and restrict them to maximum 700 words each, remembering that some people have no idea who Finn or Raven are. Putting this on hold. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review. Before I start on that section, please let me know what exactly you think should be re-written. Precisely because it should be concise and focused, other characters and storylines that are minor or secondary to this character's story are not given more descriptive detail. And as this article is about one character, details of the show that don't pertain to the character would be irrelevant. Readers who want to learn of other events and characters may go to the show's article or other character articles. Please clarify what a re-write here should consist of, e.g, trim or add specifically what content? Lapadite (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Lapadite, "details of the show that don't pertain to the character would be irrelevant" is correct. To take the first paragraph, at least half does not seem relevant to the character. The only relevant sentences seem to be "Kane attempts to take his own life rather than kill Jaha, but a Grounder witness, Lexa, reveals herself to be the commander and says she believes their wish for peace is sincere. She allows Jaha to escape with a message to his camp: leave within two days, or die." I do not know who or what Finn, Clarke, Raven, or Mount Weather are or what they have to do with Lexa's appearances. "Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible."

If you like, I can have a go and drawing up a more concise version? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I'll get to this later today. If you have watched the show, then sure I'd appreciate the help there. Lapadite (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I've trimmed and rewritten the section. Lapadite (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lapadite, it's still a bit waffly. MOS:PLOT recommends that a film synopsis be between 200 and 700 words; I think this works equally well for television seasons. At the moment, the Season 2 and Season 3 sections are around 950 words each. I have trimmed them both down substantially in one of my sandboxes here, to under 700 words in both cases.

I have sought to remove unnecessary detail, and information that does not directly relate to Lexa as an active character, while making it understandable for people who have never watched the series, like myself. I have removed the episode titles, as this is a character's biography, and the narrative arc naturally spans across multiple episodes. I have considerably shortened the later seasons, which has a lot of information of what people said or thought about Lexa, but little about her actual legacy in the series.

Please feel free to change what you want if you think I misunderstood some plot details, but I do think this kind of trimming is necessary to satisfy WP:WAF. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I've trimmed the section further per your suggestions, and made some copyedits for Lexa-relevant plot and character reveal. Lapadite (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

There are a few unreliable sources in the article: tweets should if possible be replaced with non-self-published sources (if they don't meet the criteria at WP:TWEET), Fandom (website), WhatCulture, and AfterBuzz TV. I will shortly afterwards carry out a source spotcheck, and if successful, the article should be ready for promotion Lapadite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the late replies. Cited tweets meet the WP:ABOUTSELF criteria. The Fandom citation is an interview by IGN's Eric Goldman ([1], [2], [3]) with the show's creator, where he speaks about the actress's appearance in the series finale. I removed the WhatCulture citation. AfterBuzz TV citation is a video interview with the actress. Lapadite (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Source spotchecks

• 5 good
• 38 good
• 48 good
• 67 good
• 70 good
• 91 good
• 102 good

Spotcheck passed, article is ready for GA status. Congratulations! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.