Talk:Martin Keamy/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

I have read and checked the article per WP:WIAGA, and have the following notes (nothing significant mostly):

  • Intro: "Keamy is revealed to have a much more significant role" - redundant information with the following sentences
  • "Unlike Lost's ensemble of characters who the writers say each have good and bad intentions" - awkward grammar, maybe say "Unlike Lost's ensemble of characters who according to the writers each have good and bad intentions"
  • Arc: all his his military stuff happened before the time setting of the story, so it should use simple present (edit: I meant simple past) there
  • "Once he catures Ben" - typo
  • "Mayhew" (twice) - typo?
  • "which harrases the mercenaries" - typo
  • "then obtains the "secondary protocol" from a safe using two keys—one is his; the other is forcibly taken from the captain Gault (Grant Bowler)" and "During the standoff, Gault arrives and holds Keamy at gunpoint, having learned of Keamy's mission to torch the island; however, Keamy is quick enough to grab a gun and kill Gault" - IMO unnecessary plot detail that can be trimmed, but feel free to disagree
  • "Keamy learns about about a 1980s research station" - double word
  • "despite his knowledge that this kills all who are aboard the freighter" - reads a little like an afterthought of little significance. Maybe turn into a new sentence and say that the freighter did indeed blow up, killing Michael (at least), as a significant event
  • Personality: "That doesn't bode we'll for our Losties [antagonists]" - (1) I know the source made the mistake, but it really should say "well" not "we'll" (or slap a {{sic}} on it). Also, I think you wanted to say "protagonists", not antagonists.
  • "they "are interested in exploring how good and evil can be embodied in the same characters and [the writers are also interested in] the struggles" - having "[be] interested" twice doesn't flow well
  • Casting: the first sentence seems out of context and doesn't make sense until later on
  • "when he won the part. When he was shooting," - "when" twice
  • "in "The Shape of Things to Come" when" - needs comma before "when"
  • Casting section should be named Development because the second paragraph is not about casting at all
  • Reception: "In a review of the season finale Erin Martell" - needs comma before Erin (I think)
  • "Lost's camoflaged baddie" - should be "camouflaged", probably slap a {{sic}} on it
  • not sure the Keamy's Paradise blog will live up to the test of time
  • General: please link episodes in the article for reader convenience
  • Image:Martin Keamy.png has two licenses, as a promo and a screenshot - which is it?

No problems otherwise (MOS, images and the FURs, sources etc.). Please address the majority of the above points within the next seven days; I won't make a fuzz if some points (like the prose suggestions) get ignored, as minor imperfections are alright in Good Articles (I am not saying my notes are gold though, but some peer-reviewy suggestions can't hurt). This article is on my watchlist, so just leave a note here when you think you're done. Thank you for your work so far. – sgeureka tc 16:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Most concerns have been dealt with. Mayhew is not a typo. I was unsure of how to address your third and penultimate points, so could you do them? The image is kind of a promo of a screenshot. What do you think about this going to FAC? Would you say that it is too short or as comprehensive as possible so length does not matter? Finally, I recommend checking out Keamy's Paradise and/or its YouTube video. Thanks, –thedemonhog talkedits 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the two things and rewrote one sentence, so I'll pass the article in a minute. The article is longer than 20kB, so there is some FA potential, but it's still more of a borderline case and it depends on what reviewers pass by... I just got an FAC oppose for incomprehensiveness in a 55kB article :-), fortunately easily fixable. But the sources are FA-worthy (except for the blog) and the prose is nearly FA-quality (as far as I can tell), if that's what you worry about. – sgeureka tc 19:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)