The Moth (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. Review: May 18, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Episode coverage / Lost Low‑importance 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 Low-importance). This article is supported by the Lost task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Moth (Lost)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 21:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Give me a couple hours to read this article. BenLinus1214^talk 21:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC) @Newyorkadam: Comments[reply]

• I feel that the plot summary is a bit too long. Are there any details that you feel that you could cut out? It's clocking in at 863 words currently, and per WP:TVPLOT, plot summaries should be around 200 to 500 words. It's okay if it's a bit over that word count, but the bottom line is that it needs to be shorter.
• Once again, for the caption in the production section, you need a period.

Y

• The second "Production" paragraph is too long and hard to navigate. Perhaps you could split it somewhere?

Let me know how that looks.

• Is the entire second paragraph sourced to those three footnotes? If so, then it's probably a good idea to ref name those footnotes and place them throughout the paragraph. In particular, I think it would be a good idea for you to source direct quotes. It's a bit jarring when these quotes don't have a ref at the end of them, and it makes them look unsourced.

Y

• Your reference to "Pilot" in the reception section does not have an end quote.

Y

• You usually add something about the Los Angeles Times list of Lost episodes. Where is that in this article?

Added.

If you can clean this stuff up, then I'll pass it. :) BenLinus1214^talk 00:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I'll cut down the plot summary shortly. -Newyorkadam (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

@Benlinus1214: I cut down the plot a bit— lemme know how that looks. Newyorkadam (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

@Newyorkadam: That's good enough, but in future episode articles, keep it to a bit shorter length. The next two episodes look pretty good in that regard, and I'll review those two soon. Pass. BenLinus1214^talk 23:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Benlinus1214: Thanks! I'll look into cutting those down a bit soon. -Newyorkadam (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Moth (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/20150221043321/http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-guide/season-01/107-The-Moth to http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-guide/season-01/107-The-Moth

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) 23:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]