# Talk:Adrift (Lost)

I'm glad I saw the part about how the logo on the shark was just an inside production joke. I first heard about the shark logo a few months ago (I think on Wikipedia's main Lost article), but now I don't have to think there's some kind of Dharma-shark connection.
This shark image is very helpful to the episode description. It's just a little hard to interpret. The logo is clearly visible, but the shark's tail isn't so recognizable. If there's a clearer image available, I'd be glad to see it. Otherwise, this one's pretty good. Nice work on the image, Leflyman.
Also, I'm not sure how significant this is, but the article says the mark is on a fin, while the image's zoom-in caption says it's on the tail. Maybe it's a tail fin. I don't really follow those kinds of details, but it might confuse someone who goes that deep.
--Loqi T. 18:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:LOST202.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) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lostsharktail.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) 18:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adrift (Lost)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 05:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm The Cheesy Kid, I'll be reviewing this article. I have quite a few qualms with the article that would require fixing for it to become a good article
The sentence "... realtime events show Michael and James "Sawyer" Ford..." The James "Sawyer" Ford part is clunky, perhaps James "Sawyer" Ford|Sawyer would work?
Same sentence, "who just had their raft destroyed", should be "who have just had"...
First instance of season one requires a link.
season one's finale Exodus - should be season one's finale, Exodus.
seen on the previous... should be seen in the previous...
shot at the Hawaiian shoreline... shot on? the Hawaiian shoreline...
"The sea scenes were shot at the Hawaiian shoreline, with Michael's portrayer Harold Perrineau having swimming lessons as preparation, and a mechanic shark built by the crew members suffering technical difficulties" That entire sentence needs revision.
"second biggest audience" doesn't sound encyclopaedic, largest?
of the series' run?
with criticism on... doesn't make sense, with ... receiving criticism?
Michael (Harold Perrineau)struggles (No space between ) and struggles)
"suing to keep his custody" "in order to" instead of "to".
this devolves into... how can something devolve into an argument?
"the shark, which breaks off" needs changing
"Michael then joins Sawyer in the pontoon." on the pontoon surely?
notices that they are back at the island... at the island? Needs revision.
"they are greeted by Jin" They aren't greeted by Jin, sounds too civil
"convinces Desmond she should be tied up" Desmond that she should...
"After many struggles" after much struggle... no?
centric and feature Jolene Blalock... and were to feature
Director Stephen Williams described filming at the sea as challenging since cameras, lighting and the scenery where the actors were standing were "all moving out of sync with one another", but considering that the location helped to add realism to the scenes... Entire sentence needs revision.
tuned into this episode... into the episode
First sentence of the reception section has too many uses of the word "episode".


### Lots of Work
Need I subnote that a lot of work is needed for this article to become a good article, but if all changes are made and the plot section is sufficiently rewritten, the article could be passed, at the moment however, it's a fail.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Note: I will refrain from putting anything on hold, since there seems to be no-one significantly contributing to the improvement of the article.

Is it reasonably well written? ()
A: I have to confess that the article is not written well enough to become a good article. The prose isn't up to scratch. There are quite a few grammatical errors that have yet to be fixed. 
B: The Manual of Style is acceptable however. 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable? ()
A: References to Sources, acceptable. 
B: Citation of reliable sources are great. 
C: Original research seems to be minimal but not non-existent. The production section has a few sentences without references that could be construed as original research. 
Is it broad in its coverage? ()
A: Major aspects, it isn't quite broad enough, it seems too short and a little void of information, perhaps a few more paragraphs. 
B: Focused: Definitely focused. 
Is it neutral? ()
It is a fair representation without bias: Negative and positive reviews. 
Is it stable? ()
Yes. Absolutely no edit wars. 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? ()
A: It has 2 images, both are relevant and free. 
B: Images have suitable captions and are provided where possible and appropriate. 
Overall:
Pass or Fail:  Mainly due to writing flaws and a long list of grammatical errors, it's nearly there, but needs a bit of work first.

I can't remember, were Susan Lloyd and Michael ever married? Or were they just in a relationship? If they were married, Susan should be identified as his ex-wife (or maybe ex-girlfriend) to make it easier for the reader.
The infobox has some formatting problems. Not sure what the issue is, but it needs to be fixed.
I made a few other minor edit fixes, and it looks a lot better.
All the references look good and reputable, and I feel that renominating it for GA would result in a pass. Good work, Ruby2010 talk 16:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adrift (Lost)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Matthew RD 11:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I shall conduct the review today. -- Matthew RD 11:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
So far, I noticed all the comments from the first GA review regarding the writing were corrected, but I will go over it again myself just to make sure. Also, against the GA criteria, this is how the article fairs:

Well written: Mistakes from previous review corrected, went through it myself and there does not seem to be a problem with the production and references sections. The plot I'll deal with on notes below, so pending
Sources: All releable, sources used enough through production and reception sections. Passed
Broad in coverage: See notes below
Neutral: Pending
Stable: No edit wars over the past 30 days. Passed
Images: Both look fine, non-free image has the correct tags, free image also fine. Passed
Broadness

The main problem is that the production and reception sections together are rather short, taking up barely a screen size, not a big problem if you can't find additional information to expand on them further, but the article seems taken over by the plot section. I would like it shortened. It is already 583 words in length, 83 over the recommended 500 word-summary, and the episode does not appear to have a very complicated plot; all that happens is Michael and Sawyer are trapped in raft, argue, fight off a shark, then return to the island to see Jin running from what is assumed to be the Others. If you want tips on shortening the plot, I would be happy to provide them, and hope we should shave at least 100 words off, and tighten it to make less short paragraphs and more longer ones, maybe to three, one for flashbacks, one for raft plot, and another for hatch plot. I do apoligise if I appear to be going on and on about the plot section. I'll leave it on hold. -- Matthew RD 12:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Reduced to 511 (though without the actor names is 493). Do you think it needs to expand the other sections? igordebraga ≠ 17:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can find more information on the other sections, then go for it, but if you can't then it's no big deal; I as a reviewer can't force more information if there isn't any. Back to the plot, here are my suggestions to trim it a little more
Let's see what happens if you merge the first three paragraphs together. Doing so would make the plot appear as if it was shorter.
Remove the statement "On their makeshift raft,"
"Shortly after, they sense a pounding under the raft, and soon a shark fin is seen. Michael blames Sawyer's bleeding wound for attracting the shark, and the two have continuous arguments." Howabout change to "Shortly after, the two notice a shark is encircling them; Michael believes the shark was attracted to Sawyer's bleeding wound."
"As they continue to float along with the current, one of the raft's pontoons appears, and they decide to board it." I feel it would be a little better if it went like "After they see one of the raft's pontoons, they decide to board it."
"finding an unconscious Kate in the computer room." to "finding her unconscious in the computer room." Kate was already mentioned earlier in the sentence.
"but fails to correctly answer the riddle that Desmond poses to him." to "but fails to correctly answer his riddle." Again, Desmond already mentioned earlier in sentence.
"Desmond orders Kate to tie Locke up, but Locke convinces Desmond that she should be tied up. When Desmond concurs, Kate is tied up instead; Locke slides her one of his knives, and locks her in a dark room." Seems quite bloatey, let's try "Desmond orders Kate to tie uo Locke, however, Locke convinces Desmond that Kate be tied up instead. Desmond agrees, and Locke slides her a knife before locking her in a dark room."
"After much struggle Kate frees herself, and turns on a light, finding herself in a large pantry filled with foodstuffs," Howabout "Kate frees herself and finds she is in a large pantry fill with foodstuffs,"
In other Lost GA/FA articles, the flashbacks are in the beginning, is there a reason tou moved it back to the end?
Because of the inverse - flashforwards finishing. And the paragraph is really short. But I'll put it at the beginning.
Sorry to burden you with yet another handful of things to do, but hopefully we can shave a few extra words off those notes. If they are done, then I hope we can pass this. -- Matthew RD 20:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Can't find any more data for those sections, but did the Plot rewrites. igordebraga ≠ 00:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That is fine, all checks out now, the article is better. Pass. Good job! -- Matthew RD 01:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adrift (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/20121020104447/http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-detail/adrift/40658 to http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-detail/adrift/40658
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)