Talk:Man of Science, Man of Faith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Man of Science, Man of Faith has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
February 15, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Lost    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Lost, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborate effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the episode coverage task force (marked as Mid-importance).

Centralized move discussion[edit]

Per WP:LOST/Episode guidelines, this page should be moved from Man of Science, Man of Faith to Man of Science, Man of Faith (Lost), to make it consistent with the other Lost episodes at Category:Lost episodes. Anyone interested in supporting or opposing this move, or who believes that a different suffix should be used (such as "(Lost episode)"), or who wishes to comment in any way, is encouraged to participate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix. --Elonka 14:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LOST201.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:LOST201.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) 17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


The introduction mentions "a late 1970s-era computer," which links to the article for the Apple II. If the episode shows an Apple II, perhaps the article should just state that. If it is indeed ambiguous, there should not be such a specific link.

The subsection "On The Island" mentions the resident of the hatch pointing a gun "at the side of his head." It is not clear whether the gun is pointed at Jack's head or Locke's head (although Jack's head makes more sense).

If these issues still exist by the time I watch the episode, I will edit the article again.

S4n1HS22WMX695In (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)S4n1HS22WMX695In

Is it worth mentioning that in the emergency room flashback scene Jack has to make a decision as to which of two car accident victims to treat, and, choosing his future wife, the other victim, Shannon's father (Mr. Rutherford) succumbs to his wounds? The reference is fleeting and easily missed, so is it legitimately something worth mentioning? Or is it something best left for a reveal in a future ep? Just asking. (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)kjdamrau

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Man of Science, Man of Faith/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. 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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  2. 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)
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  2. 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)
  1. 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):
  2. Overall:
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Done those too. Anything else? igordebraga 01:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Good to go. Passed for GA. I'm also a big Lost fan, so great work!  :) Ruby2010 talk 01:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Small nitpicking errors :)[edit]

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)

*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.

Wrong Citation[edit]

The IGN review links to one of a different episode.ProfNax (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)