Talk:When You're Lost in the Darkness

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleWhen You're Lost in the Darkness 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
DateProcessResult
August 18, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 25, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that three blocks near Stampede Park were transformed into a destroyed city for the first episode of The Last of Us?

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Craig Mazin
Craig Mazin

Converted from a redirect by Rhain (talk). Self-nominated at 00:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article mostly looks good, long enough and new. It doesn't look like the ALT1 and article facts exactly line up with the source though. The Calgary Herald article says that they "transformed" three blocks to look more apocalyptic. This is pretty different than actually constructing three blocks in Calgary. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@
he/him) 03:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Rhain: thank you for the extra source! I hate to be a stickler but since neither source specifically says that they built three blocks it's better to either tweak the hook or use ALT0. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
he/him) 05:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you @Rhain: this nom looks ready! BuySomeApples (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023

There is a major spoiler at the beginning of this article. Sarah’s death should not be mentioned in the intro, only on the plot synopsis. Having that fact in the intro is going to spoil the episode for anyone who might just be looking for cast members, run time, etc. really poor form. Swartzalec7 (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

he/him) 00:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I think we could leave that out in the lead, there probably isn't a compelling reason for it to be in the second sentence. Valereee (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2023

There are one or two actors missing in the guest starring bill.Cosmic2992 (talk) Cosmic2992 (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@
he/him) 02:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Anna Torv and Gabriel Luna. Cosmic2992 (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. They're recurring actors in the series, not guest stars. –
he/him) 03:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
normally the guest bill contains guest and recurring actors eps of a specific tv show. it's like that all the time. not just a single show. Cosmic2992 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per {{
he/him) 03:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The latest episode explicitly credits Torv as a guest star, whereas the first was more ambiguous. –
he/him) 00:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

revert

Hey, @Rhain! I think we need that, it's basically the major plot point of the episode and the impetus for the entire upcoming journey: Ellie was bitten, didn't get sick, and Marlene believes getting her 'west' is crucial. I'm no fan of long plot summaries, but this is probably the most important thing that happened this episode, much more important than, say, Sarah getting the watch repaired or the truck overturning. Valereee (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@
he/him) 00:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

GA?

Hi, @Rhain! Do you plan to take this to GAC by any chance? It's quite thorough in coverage and seems to meet the criteria I feel. BlackShadowG (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you think so! My plan was to wait until the episode was at least a few weeks old (or the season was over) to ensure stability per
he/him) 17:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I always thought this article was worthy of GA since I first saw it a few weeks ago. If Rhain keeps his good work, it's not crazy to imagine that a good topic will be possible after the end of the first season. All episode articles are looking pretty good. Skyshifter talk 17:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:When You're Lost in the Darkness/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BuySomeApples (talk · contribs) 02:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to start reviewing the article and will try to write most of the suggestions as soon as possible. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Very well written article, but there are a few typos and other minor fixes.
1b. it complies with the
list incorporation
. 		Pretty solid, with just a few nitpicks.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline
. 		Refs look solid and properly formatted to me.
2b. 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). Reliable sources, some social media and interview links are used but only to verify statements by people involved in the show's development.
2c. it contains no original research. Looks like good sourcing, I spot checked almost all of the refs and I only found small issues.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Comes up clean on Earwig, and nothing stood out to me.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. I'm not seeing any major omissions but I will mention if something jumps out at me during this review (unlikely because this is so comprehensive).
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article appears really neutral and I think it accurately encapsulates the overall critical reception of the pilot. It was an almost overwhelmingly positive reception with some notable critiques.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. I see some recent good faith edits and reverts but nothing that seems like it makes the page contentious.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
audio
:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Relevant and properly tagged images, honestly good work finding so many quality illustrations.
6b. media are
relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
. 		These all look good to me.
7. Overall assessment. Awesome job on this nom (and all of the LOU pages you've worked on). I'll flesh this out a bit more.

Lead

The caption of the image in the infobox could be more succinct.

“with praise for writing, direction,” - maybe “praise for its writing, direction” etc

Overall the lead is well written and summarizes the article well.

Plot

Nice job summarizing the plot, and keeping the length just right. Per

MOS:TVPLOT
, since the cast is discussed elsewhere, they shouldn’t be named in the “Plot” section. We can add their full name to “Casting and characters” though.

Conception and writing

“was set to direct several the first few episodes.” - Typo?

Which part of the sentence does Ref 12 support?

Ref 18, I can’t see where the interview confirms this but I might have missed it.

  • The relevant quote from Mazin: "I was directing that episode when [Joel and Ellie] come together for the first time". ☔

Other than this, I think the page is solid. Most of these issues are pretty small, technical changes so this should be ready to pass pretty soon.

Music

I’m not sure if the lyrics from “White Flag” need to be included, usually even articles about songs include only small snippets of lyrics.

Filming

Refs 55 and 56, the guild document confirms July 12 but the CBC says the (outdated) info about July 5, so it can be removed or placed at the end of the sentence.

In the second paragraph, three different sentences reference Ref 29. The first two can be removed, and the last one left in to support them all.

Reception

“GameSpot's Mark Delaney said Pascal made him cry twice and lauded his ability to portray different sides of Joel” - Can you change this line to describe more about what Delaney appreciated about the portrayal instead so it’s less about the reviewer?

Final comments

Honestly, the page is very solid and I'm mostly nitpicking here. It's fun to revisit this article and see how it's grown since it was at DYK. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review,
he/him) 23:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nice work @Rhain: I've made one or two small tweaks but this is ready otherwise. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:When_You%27re_Lost_in_the_Darkness&oldid=1204668629"