# Talk:Walkabout (Lost)

the walkabout guy near the end tells locke that they'll send him home on "our dime" or at least that's how i heard it. 
i don't think australia has a "dime" it seems like an uncommon turn of phrase for they guy to use, 
could this be added as a mistake in the writing?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.56.12 (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Walkabout (Lost)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Well done.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the lead, "It first aired on October 13, 2004 on ABC" ---> "It first aired on October 13, 2004, on ABC", commas after dates, if using MDY.
Done.
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Reference 1 is missing Publisher info.
Done (how I missed that?!).
Don't worry about it, we all have those moments. ;) Check.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 
Is "Lostpedia" a reliable source?
It's an interview with the writer of the episode, and the website is respected.
Just needed to know.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
File:Locke.JPG needs a lower resolution.
Done.
Check.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Anything else? igordebraga ≠ 16:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Nope, that's it. Thank you to igordebraga for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Walkabout (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/20090601194225/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=101904_12 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=101904_12
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: 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) 01:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)