Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lost (TV series)/archive1

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

Lost (TV series)[edit]

Great show. I think it's time.- JustPhil 23:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Better than I expected... but the intro could use some attention, see Wikipedia:Lead section. Again, as with many TV articles, what does this really do for people who aren't fans (or aren't fans yet)? This is better than the last few though... but it would be nice to read more than 1/5 of the article before getting hit with cast lists, spoiler sections, etc. that are of minimal to no interest to non-fans. Seems to be well-referenced, though I personally don't think plucking violin strings constitutes something "highly inventive"! --W.marsh 16:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: as far as I am aware, the article wasn't intended/expected to be nominated for featured status yet; the editors there have previously made an improvement drive through a peer review of the article, and would likely have requested another review prior to nomination. —LeflymanTalk 19:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. No screenshots. Brand 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as I'm aware of, I don't believe images are required to have an article promoted to featured status; they simply illustrate the text visually. —Eternal Equinox | talk 17:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Note that the FA guidelines require that a Featured Article have images where appropriate. For an article about a TV show, images are very much appropriate. It's subjects for which illustration is of little use (such as Psychosis, Libertarianism, etc.) that don't need pictures. Andrew Levine 22:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Due to the amount of content already there, screenshots have up to now been reserved, where appropriate, for the extensive separate articles on characters, episodes and organisations on the show, such as The DHARMA Initiative. They would not be appropriate to the main article text, which deals with the context and background of the series. —LeflymanTalk 19:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
          • In this case, I suppose that you are correct. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Although a well referenced and well written article, it's not very enecylopedic for anyone who has never seen the show (and it's possible, since I've never seen an episode). If you delete the character and show theories, there's not much to the article. It should have something on the making of the show, the development, how it was sold to ABC, were they expecting a hit from this, critical views, and competition. ABC took a huge gamble with the show, as it was considered a has-been network until this and Desperate Housewives turned it into the number one station -- some research into the show's importance for the network should be there. Finally, a comment, in that it's probably much too soon for a FA on this topic, as it's still tynically a "current event" with it still being on the air and early in the show's ever changing storyline. However, that's just my opinion, and other editors might feel differently on this as I don't believe it's FAC criteria.--Ataricodfish 19:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. My vote is based on the same grounds as Ataricodfish. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Main reason is because Lost is such a clear-cut commercial venture by being written as a never-ending cliffhanger to a degree that I've never seen in a TV-series before. It's quite obvious that it will go on for as long as ABC gets the ratings it wants and it's not even in its third season, so I'd say it's still in its infancy. And, like pointed out by Atari, the article content is not too encyclopedic. It's downright crufty at times and there's rather spurious fan speculation about the possible outcome of the series that I wouldn't find acceptable in any article about fiction. / Peter Isotalo 11:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As required by the Featured article candidates procedure, objections "must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." Please detail the particular "spurious fan speculation about possible outcomes" in the article— the article has intentionally excluded any outcomes. As Lost is a series that engenders rampant theorisation, from both fans and television critics, there is a short section of "discredited theories" which takes on the issue of speculation by specifying those concepts which have been verifiably dismissed by the series writers and creators. This section includes a commented-out notice for editors: "The ONLY theories to be included in this section are those specifically REFUTED by the show's creators/writers. ALL unsourced theories will be removed, as Original Research." —LeflymanTalk 19:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Fan theories that have been outright dismissed by the writers strikes me as trivia(l). That a fact can be asserted doesn't mean it should always be included in one of our articles, least of all an FA. Fans are not notable and neither are most of their speculations. / Peter Isotalo 14:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe that in this case you are incorrect; due to the mystery-oriented nature of the show, "water cooler" speculation that surrounds Lost is highly notable. Countless television critics and verifiable publications have written on the topic. See, for example:
    • Contra Costa Times: "TV critic losing himself to 'Lost'";
    • Entertainment Weekly; "Towards a unified theory of Lost"
    • New Yorker: "it has become a strong presence on the Internet among nerdy gamers and those who like to weave conspiracy theories and sift through clues in TV-show plots in their free time."
However, to make sure that the article deals only in verifiable information, the section is not merely "fan theories" per se but specific concepts that the writers/creators have said the show is not about. You bring up an interesting point that I've wrestled with: how to delineating just what should constitute "trivia" in fan-oriented articles. If you're interested, I'd be pleased to have your input on my slow-going proposed addition to What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a fan site"—LeflymanTalk 19:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. It is a good article for the fans but not one to be featured. IMO, featured articles should be 100% encyclopedic. In this case, the Lost article skews a certain degree from what WP's articles should be as it is itself OR and in reality has very few encyclopedic content.Phoebusγράψε μου κάτι 00:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you give some examples on what can be changed to make it more encyclopedic? Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe Ataricodfish has already stated enough examples. Eventhough I find the article very rewarding to read since I am a dedicated Lost fan, it is not encyclopedic or to be more exact, it's not how WP expects the articles to be written. The episode caps for instances are 100% OR. I for one, don't care at all about WP's rules since they're just rules which sometimes should be bent if not broken in order to have the information available. My opinion is that the featured article should be one that has encyclopedic content first and foremost, and secondly about a topic that other commercial encyclopedias have few or no information at all. That would show the advantage of the WP as a project.Phoebusγράψε μου κάτι 14:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)