Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lost (season 3)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lost (season 3)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10+ days, four support, no opposition. Comments responded to/addressed, no further responses back. Promote. Daniel 03:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nominate this comprehensive page. The first season was promoted a few hours ago. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Meets all criteria, and is modelled after Lost (season 1), also featured. There are only a few things to bring up:
    •  Done As with Season 1, I find the links in the episode summaries somewhat random and irrelevant to the plot. If you're going to link things such as polar bear and Paris, you may as well link everything from submarine to monk, or better still, the characters. But, as with the revised Season 1, I'd recommend just removing all links entirely.
    •  Done Also as with Season 1, the use of numerals vs. written-out numbers when writing numbers is inconsistent, with all numbers under ten written out, 40 written in numerals, 68 in numerals, thirteen and twenty-two written out, sixteen written out, twelve written out and thrity written out. (From WP:MoS: "Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either “There were 5 cats and 32 dogs” or “There were five cats and thirty-two dogs”, not “There were five cats and 32 dogs”).")
    •  Done Branching off the above point is numerals vs. written-out numbers when using ordinal numbers. This is also inconsistent, with third written out, first and second written out, 17th and 9th in numerals, and fourteenth written out. (MoS: "Ordinal numbers are spelled out using the same rules as for cardinal numbers.")
    •  Done This sentence in the lead reads a little awkwardly, "The season is set on 28 November to 23 December 2004." Could this be re-worded just so the season is not "set on" a period of time. •97198 talk 06:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have made the numbers consistent and removed links from episode summaries. As for your last concern, do you have any ideas? Would "The season takes place from November 28 to December 23, 2004" work? –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that would be fine, grammatically. •97198 talk 07:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Based on FL Lost (season 1), informative, thorough, and meets FL criteria. -- Wikipedical 22:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a hard time believing an unreleased DVD can be used as a source... Circeus 06:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, an awkward sentence is "L. Scott Caldwell as Rose Henderson and Sam Anderson as Bernard Nadler briefly return as a Flight 815 married couple." Could this be reworded as "L. Scott Caldwell and Sam Anderson as Rose Henderson and Bernard Nadler..."? You could even add a "respectively" in there, if you felf there could be any kind of confusion between who plays whom (which I personally don't think there would be). •97198 talk 03:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It follows the original season (the link to which i amended in your nom). I couldn't see any awkward sentences remaining. Seems to meet the criteria. Woodym555 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Lost_(season_3)&oldid=1138487952"