Talk:Because You Left/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ruby2010   talk  03:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review the article sometime later today or tomorrow. Thanks, Ruby2010   talk  03:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Sources 11, 17, and 23 need a publisher. Ruby2010   talk  22:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources 11, 17, and 23 need a publisher. Ruby2010   talk  22:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * There appears to be an edit problem with User: 200.120.81.30, and it doesn't seem to have been completely resolved yet. Care to comment on it? Ruby2010   talk  22:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just something so trivial I had to put on WP:LAME.
 * Stop deleting four accurate words and the stability is rock solid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.120.81.30 (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to complain, but I guess I'll try some different word combinations. Truthfully, though, it seems a long drawn out process for something so small, so innocuous and with info whose accuracy is completely undisputed.  It could have been over YEARS ago.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.120.81.30 (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am not a bot. Second of all, you're correct, this could have been over before. You seem to be the only person continually adding this unneeded information to this article. The facts of the matter are these- 1) Any other episode article where this character is mentioned makes no reference to his other sue of name; 2) Different word combinations will not make up for the fact that you continually add this information even though it's been made clear on the article talk page, your personal talk page, and through edit comments, that the information is unneeded and other editors (the community) feel you're vandalizing. This GA review is to improve the article and get it up to a certain standard here on Wikpedia. Your continued edits are seemingly making that impossible. It was never said by anyone other than yourself that this seems necessary. And in reference to your "years ago" comment, from what I remember, except for a few different IPs, for the most part, the issue had been settled on the talk page and the article reflected the consensus to not include the information, that is until a few months ago when you deemed it necessary. --HELLØ    ŦHERE 23:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And just for a clarification, while looking back through the history of the article, I found that not only did this specific IP start this whole "nonsense war" in October of 2010, but the last time someone else had put this same bit about "Dr. Candle" in (from what I found), was one year prior to that (October 2009). So, it seems, that for a whole year, the matter was settled.
 * Hello there, Hello There! Nice to hear from you again!  I would say that you greatly mis-characterized the "Edit War Nonsense" section.  No need to answer, it's on you.  The info is accurate and brief.  No one argues it's veracity. People who might look for the time when this moment is revealed could find it here, if not for this issue.  This is the mandate of the site, no?  Waiting controversy out is not the same as dispelling controversy.  It's true that I started this whole thing again, by accident.  I stopped in and noticed that the edit had stayed for months and commented on how happy I was.
 * First of all, I am not a bot. Second of all, you're correct, this could have been over before. You seem to be the only person continually adding this unneeded information to this article. The facts of the matter are these- 1) Any other episode article where this character is mentioned makes no reference to his other sue of name; 2) Different word combinations will not make up for the fact that you continually add this information even though it's been made clear on the article talk page, your personal talk page, and through edit comments, that the information is unneeded and other editors (the community) feel you're vandalizing. This GA review is to improve the article and get it up to a certain standard here on Wikpedia. Your continued edits are seemingly making that impossible. It was never said by anyone other than yourself that this seems necessary. And in reference to your "years ago" comment, from what I remember, except for a few different IPs, for the most part, the issue had been settled on the talk page and the article reflected the consensus to not include the information, that is until a few months ago when you deemed it necessary. --HELLØ    ŦHERE 23:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And just for a clarification, while looking back through the history of the article, I found that not only did this specific IP start this whole "nonsense war" in October of 2010, but the last time someone else had put this same bit about "Dr. Candle" in (from what I found), was one year prior to that (October 2009). So, it seems, that for a whole year, the matter was settled.
 * Hello there, Hello There! Nice to hear from you again!  I would say that you greatly mis-characterized the "Edit War Nonsense" section.  No need to answer, it's on you.  The info is accurate and brief.  No one argues it's veracity. People who might look for the time when this moment is revealed could find it here, if not for this issue.  This is the mandate of the site, no?  Waiting controversy out is not the same as dispelling controversy.  It's true that I started this whole thing again, by accident.  I stopped in and noticed that the edit had stayed for months and commented on how happy I was.

To the GA reviewer: Sorry that you had to see this. Seriously, though, it's a cheesy tv ep summary...aren't there more deserving articles to look at?

Anyhoo. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.120.81.30 (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This guy must get points for style? Or at least a special mention for his demonstration of dedication to the Marvin Candle Appreciation Society? That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 00:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Congratulations! On behalf of the DeGroots, Alvar Hanso, and all of us at the DHARMA Initiative, thank you, namaste, and... good luck." igordebraga ≠ 02:26, 10 March 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * The lead should have a brief summary of the episode's critical reception (just a few components of the episode that seem to have a consensus among reviewers). Ruby2010   talk  20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the lead doesn't need citations, as it is meant to be a summary of the article (and the citations should thus be in the body). Ruby2010   talk  20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In 2007, back in Los Angeles, two lawyers visit Kate Austen (Evangeline Lilly) and serve her with a court order for a maternity test for her and Aaron, Claire Littleton's (Emilie de Ravin) son, whom Kate is raising as her own, but they refuse to reveal their client's identity. The sentence makes sense, but is a little long and wordy. Maybe split into two, or add a semicolon in there somewhere? Ruby2010   talk  20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The production section has some tense issues. Following a writing "mini-camp" to map out the fifth season,[5] the premiere's script was written and filming began on August 19.[6] While previous seasons had been filmed in high definition, this season premiere is the first Lost episode to be edited in it.[7]. Choose either past or present tense, and stick with it. Same goes for the rest of the section. Ruby2010   talk  20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll come back to the reception section in an hour or so and complete the review. Thanks, Ruby2010   talk  20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reception section looks good. Just reply or edit accordingly to my suggestions/comments and the article will be good to go. Thanks, Ruby2010   talk  22:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Did those, though I'm not so sure if my rewrite of the sentence in the third bullet point is good enough; anything else? igordebraga ≠ 00:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making the changes. I would be happy to pass the article, except for the still ongoing issue with the IP user, who again just made an edit that was previously reverted. I can see the merits of both sides of this issue, but since the issue has yet to be completely resolved, I added the issue to the GA talkpage to get a second opinion. I'll put the GA nom on hold for another seven days while the issue gets looked at. Thanks, Ruby2010   talk  03:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how the article is now protected and no one really responded negatively to passing the article for GA, I'll go ahead and approve it. Nice work, Ruby2010   talk  18:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)