Wikipedia:Peer review/The Other Woman (Lost)/archive1

The Other Woman (Lost)

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. This GA was at FAC recently and suffered from a lack of comments. The nomination was archived with two votes: one neutral who felt that the article could use another copyedit and one oppose who offered to strike his vote if no one supported his view on the image, which no one did. I tried to renominate it, but Sandy pointed to one of the sources, which has been taken to the reliable sources noticeboard; however, I expect it to pass. Basically, I do not want there to be any excuses when I renominate it. Thanks, – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read the article and the failed FAC. I now see that a full two weeks had not passed between the end of the FAC and the nomination here at PR, but since I have already read the article and have comments I will let it slide. I found the FAC to be much different than the impression the summary above gave - there were many comments from different people, just not much support. I always think an FAC is the most comprehensive peer review an article can get - I agree with several of the points raised there and would ask the FAC reviewers to look at the article again to see if their concerns have been met before nominating this again. That said, here are some suggestions:
 * I have never seen the program or this episode. I found the plot and several of the references to the mythology confusing, which for me is a sign that the article is not yet at a professional level of prose (see WP:WIAFA and/or needs to be written from more of an out of universe perspective (see WP:IN-U). Examples of unclear items for me at least - Juliet's life on the island is depicted in flashbacks. A week after she arrives in mid-September 2001, she begins to receive therapy from Harper Stanhope (Andrea Roth). Now the lead says the plane crashed there in 2004, so I have no idea how Juliet is already on the island in 2001, or who Harper Stanhope is.
 * I also note that the episode takes place on Christmas Eve and Christmas day - does this play a role in the plot in any way? I am also not sure about the title - who exactly is the Other Woman? Or reading the Dharma Initiative article I find this is the first episode in which the Tempest appears - should that be be mentioned here?
 * Awkward phrase ... criticizing the flashbacks as being redundant and the Tempest storyline due to a lack of explanation for the station's original purpose.[46] I had to read it three times before I figured it out
 * The Reception section seemed a bit of a quote farm to me - is there any way the different quotes could be pulled together more? As it is it mostly seems to be "Critic A of Paper X found it _________, while Critic B of paper Y thought the acting was _________, and Critic C of media outlet Z said _________" Could the paragraphs be more thamatically arranged or have brief topic sentences or phrases to help make the point clearer? Try to do the ... that the episode was more heavily focused on Ben, instead of Juliet ... thing for each paragraph.
 * Are there more comments from writers / producers / director that could go into the Production section? I fear I am tired and confused by my lack of knowledge of the show - I hope this is helpful, this feels close to FA, but not quite there.