Talk:The Variable/GA1

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

Great article for a good episode. Nice amount of detail! Here are my thoughts, please address each one individually...

Plot:
 * Unfortunately, WP:MOSTV says an episode article plot summary should be between 200 and 500 words, and this is more like 600. I know Lost is a complex show, so if it's a bit over 500 I'll be OK with that, but could you try shortening it to closer to 500?
 * (Also, as a means of shortening, perhaps you could start by just dropping the last names of the characters? In my The Office articles, I usually use just "Michael (Steve Carell)" instead of "Michael Scott (Steve Carell)", for example, and that seems to work...)

Production:
 * It's not a major objection, but the "and features elements of time travel." bit at the end of the first sentence seems a bit tagged on. I'd say it could either be removed, or perhaps you could add a bit of context? Like "and, like most of the fifth season episodes, features elements of time travel."
 * "Once we explained that to Jeremy, while he was personally saddened that his full-time status on Lost was coming to an end, he put the story above his own personal self." I think it would be better to break this out of the quote and incorporate it into the prose of the article, because the quote is getting a bit long. (If you want me to give it a try, let me know.)
 * Please take a look at this grammatical change I made and let me know whether you're OK with it.
 * Yup, looks good. Thanks!

Reception:
 * It's mentioned in your first source that this episode was up by 2.1 million viewers, and 34% in Adults 18-49, from the previous week's episode "Some Like It Hoth". I think this is worth including, what do you think?
 * No, it was up 2.1 million viewers from the previous week's clip show episode, which I don't really think is worth mentioning.

I'll place it on hold in the meantime. Nice job! —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  19:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! :) I think I've fixed everything, though I wasn't able to shorten the plot section down (it's impossible :P).  The Le ft orium  20:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A good article is:
 * 1) Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
 * 2) Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
 * 3) Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
 * 4) Neutral: Yes.
 * 5) Stable: Yes.
 * 6) Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Pass. Nice work! —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  14:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  The Le ft orium  14:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)