Wikipedia:Peer review/Lost (TV series)/archive1

Lost (TV series)
Articles related to the ABC "hit" series LOST have been in development for over a year, and have matured quite nicely. A review was suggested by one of the recent editors, towards a goal of being a featured article. Talk page discussions by various editors have been extensive, and have lately been focused on raising the standards of verifiability for the more esoteric aspects of the show: its "thematic" elements. As a long-time editor for the Lost-related group, I think the article(s) could use some additional peer review/fresh eyes to provide some perspective on improvements that we might have missed. —LeFlyman 22:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition, to reach FA status, there must be references, which are nonexistant in the article. Also, there needs to be inline citations, most often which occur in the form of footnotes.
 * Also, the majority of the lists should be converted into prose. (especially under Story elements) AndyZ 23:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We have began finding citations for many of claims in the article and a footnotes section is well underway. Could you please elaborate on which lists should be converted to prose?  I looked over the current lists and it seems like that is the best way to present that information. Jtrost 04:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Jtrost wrote this, some editors, including myself, have rewritten the Story Elements sections from lists into prose form.—LeFlyman 10:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also the lead section needs to be beefed up from one sentence as per this:
 * The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Summary style and News style). from Lead section


 * I have taken the liberty to reorganize the lead and the first section so that basic details, who (created by Abrams, produced by Bad Robot), what (runs on ABC) where are covered in a two paragraph lead which is appropriate for the number of characters in the article. --Lexor|Talk 05:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A section on "production" should be added, e.g. where it is shot, how Oahu is faked to look like locations in London, Sydney, Iraq, US states (Iowa, California), a descriptions on cinematography, music (both of which are critical elements of Lost). --Lexor|Talk 05:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. Perhaps you might elaborate on how such a production discussion could be made encyclopedic, and avoid being Original Research-- as I've never come across an article about Lost which covers any of the production-related matters you list. —LeFlyman 10:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The extras on the DVD have some information. In particular the "Lost Chronicles" (a bonus DVD with only "extras") talks about how they bought the plane in California, and flew in from the Mojave Desert to Oahu in pieces.  Also some info on the locations such as North Beach on Oahu.  Individual DVD episodes also have info in the commentaries (haven't listened to them, though).  You can't link to a website, but it is verifiable info (just point the reader to the particular DVD extra: e.g. "Disc 5, Episode 6 commentary" as an example). --Lexor|Talk 06:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)