Talk:Two for the Road (Lost)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Two for the Road (Lost) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Two for the Road (Lost) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 15, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Television: Episode coverage / Lost Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Lost task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Michael[edit]

I think that it is important that the way in which Michael reacts to hearing that they have captured one of the "others" should be in the article. The article gives the impression that Michael was acting on orders, and although he could be, there is also the possibility that he believes he could make a trade and is acting on impulse. I'm not sure how the POV applys to this, but I will need help incorperating it into the article in a way in which the reader can make up his or her own mind up about the reason why he did it, as the program does.

Moitio ^(talk) 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lost-TwoForTheRoad.jpg[edit]

Image:Lost-TwoForTheRoad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TwoForTheRoadMichael.JPG[edit]

Image:TwoForTheRoadMichael.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Transcluded from Talk:Two for the Road (Lost)/GA1

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead is quite short; please increase.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Even though all the sources seem reliable, some of them aren't available anymore; please check this.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
please increase the "Reception" section.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
the last time the article was edited (besides my typoe fix) was 28 of July.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Please increase the reception section and the lead; and check the sources. Music2611 (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have increased the lead and fixed the references. Still working on the reception section. I would appreciate some input on the lead (Is it long enough now?). Thanks! --Mr.crabby ''''' (Talk) 15:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is good, thanks Music2611 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Worked on reception section, tell me what you think! --Mr.crabby ''''' (Talk) 15:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but it still requires some more expansion. Music2611 (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific in what you're looking for? That section has information on ratings and reviews (positive and negative). --Mr.crabby ''''' (Talk) 01:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've read it again, it's definetely a pass! Music2611 (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Two for the Road (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Two for the Road (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311175604/http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Did-Lost-Kill/700001362 to http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Did-Lost-Kill/700001362

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]