Article of the Week Nominations Archive2007

==Accepted Nominations 2007==

===Alvar Hanso===
*Nominated by {{UserMarik7772003/sig}} 1551, 17 January 2007 (PST)
*Rationale Alvar Hanso is a major mystery in the Lost mythos. His page is very well-written, using his quotes to illustrate various points. His theories page also include several credible theories. Using info gleaned by The Lost Experience, and from the TV show itself, Alvar Hanso's page has enough credibility to be AoTW.
**'''Yes''' Well I was the one who rewrote the article so I'm biased, but I think its good even if I say so myself. The reason I rewrote it was because WP had better prose than we did for the character, so I put on my creative cap to make ours a bit more of a rival in terms of information --{{UserNickb123/sig}} 0412, 18 January 2007 (PST)

===Bloopers and continuity errors===
*Nominated by --{{UserPandoraX/sig}} 0439, 19 January 2007 (PST)
*I personally think this is probably one of the cooler articles (and pretty different from the other "in show" info we usually feature).  A change of pace, I'd say. Though I personally wouldn't have a problem with any of the above nominations, either, they are all good.
*'''Yes''' Very different to the normal featured Article. --{{UserDee4leeds/sig}} 0721, 19 January 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes''' It is a quite cool article documenting all the flubs in the TV show. WOuld definitely be a change of pace. --{{UserMarik7772003/sig}} 1010, 19 January 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes''' --'''''UserPshyco Smokey Monster 2|THE MONSTER''''' ''
*'''Yes''' - I prefer these "different" articles that highlight the unique encyclopedic information unique to Lostpedia. --{{UserSanta/sig}} 0226, 20 January 2007 (PST)
*ahahahaha I love the one for {{ep}}.  No other Lost site can possibly have that one.  wink.  Nice! --{{UserSanta/sig}} 0247, 20 January 2007 (PST)
* LOL, this is sad, but I was the one who added it.  In my defense, I did it only after someone on another forum (a radiology tech) pointed it out--it's not my field, but having taken neuro, I have to admit it bugged me also. I am such a geek.  --{{UserPandoraX/sig}} 1559, 20 January 2007 (PST)
*Hence the wink.XD --{{UserSanta/sig}} 0332, 22 January 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes, with a condition'''  It's a good article, but I'd like to see someone design a new table of contents for the top.  The default TOC is huge and the top of the article looks awful.  This should have some sort of introduction at the very top of the page to tell the reader what it's all about.  --{{UserJabberwock/sig}} - 0730, 23 January 2007 (PST)
* I agree, Jabbr, and suppressed the TOC. However, I experimented with a few ideas and they didn't work very well (for a horizontal TOC). If anyone has any ideas, I'm all ears.. er, eyes. --{{UserPandoraX/sig}} 2004, 23 January 2007 (PST)
*Looking much better now.  --{{UserJabberwock/sig}} - 1743, 26 January 2007 (PST)

* Nominated by --{{UserBlue eagle islander/sig}} 1809, 6 December 2006 (PST)
* Easy to read, fun, plenty of pictures, interesting and one of our best lists here. --{{UserBlue eagle islander/sig}} 1809, 6 December 2006 (PST)
*'''Yes''' A very simple but effective article. --{{UserDee4leeds/sig}} 0614, 9 December 2006 (PST)
*'''No''' 'Nuff Said.  no writing in the article.  the a-mission concept is kinda flimsy to begin with and it just lists pretty much everytime jack, kate, locke, or sawyer ever go out of camp.  so, NO. ---Slyce23---
*'''Abstain''' I really like this article cause its quite quirky, but I agree there isn't much brilliant content --{{UserNickb123/sig}} 0414, 16 December 2006 (PST)
*'''Yes''' -  A very novel way of looking at Lost's storyline, as well as episode structure with respect to who gets a flashback.  I got hooked by the article and made some basic structural edits, and although it could use more editors making it better (AAA anyone?), I think it already deserves recommendation. --{{UserSanta/sig}} 0258, 19 December 2006 (PST)
*'''No''' Although this article is a nice list of some of the more prominent Losties' actions, that is really all the article remains--a list. There's not very much in terms of prose, analysis, research, or anything else that you'd see in most featured articles. -UserPsychoYoshi 2107, 22 December 2006 (PST)
**In rebuttal, 1) list articles ''have'' been featured before, 2) You mention prose, analysis, and research, but actually NO storyline article has ever been featured as AOTW; 3) The concept of the article ''IS'' the analysis and research, as explained above. --{{UserSanta/sig}} 2125, 22 December 2006 (PST)
***'''Revise to yes''' This looks '''very''' nice now. ) -UserPsychoYoshi 2241, 2 February 2007 (PST)
*'''Not yet''' Although the article makes a great list of entires to the storyline's most interesting plots, its current structure, solely depending on short bullets describing the Mission, its Outcome & Discoveries, makes it a bit like a list of scores for a group of football matches. To solve this, I suggest the following

*Providing a short but descriptive analysis of the background and significance of each mission, pointing out its contribution in the development of the Storyline.
*Providing simple outlines for the significance and the affect of the mission on the main characters involved. See the under development Rivalries, for a List article that can yet be more related to both storyline and the involved characters. 

--{{UserNomad/sig}} 0056, 23 December 2006 (PST)

* '''Big Yes''' Based on the excellent efforts recently made by userLost Soul, userSanta and others to greatly modify this article. 
Nice job! --{{UserNomad/sig}} 1552, 20 January 2007 (PST)
* '''Yes''' I also had fun reading it and it's definably a good list UserBettyfizzw 1931, 30 December 2006 (PST)
* '''Yes''' It's one of our best lists --UserMr. Crabby. Crabby 0930, 31 December 2006 (PST)
* '''Yes''' definitively after the article attack, really deserves it. --{{UserMr.Leaf/sig}} 1555, 20 January 2007 (PST)
* '''Change to No''' I think more decussion is needed about the infomation the boxes. Such as the need for "Relation to Storyline" and the picture sizes. --{{UserDee4leeds/sig}} 0444, 4 February 2007 (PST)

* Nominated by --{{UserNickb123/sig}} 1146, 4 February 2007 (PST)
* Clear evidence of Article Attack at its best, the article looks fantastic now with a wonderful recurring themes bit. Also really like the small images under the DHARMA subheading - perhaps something we could incorporate in other articles?
*'''Yes''' I don't think I touched it in the Article Attack an for that I am ashamed. Compare the current version though to one a week ago. Well done to all involved I say. their work deserves to be shown off and this is the way to do it. --{{UserPrincess_DHARMA/sig}} 1151, 4 February 2007 (PST)
*I never thought I'd say it for this article but '''Yes''' due to the contributions by UserDagg and UserSanta during Article Attack --{{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 0408, 5 February 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes''' but I cant help but feel something could be done with the infomation underneth the box. --{{UserDee4leeds/sig}} 0754, 5 February 2007 (PST)

*Nominated by {{UserLost_Soul/sig}} 0055, 21 January 2007 (PST)
*Rationale This is a very nice article, that is well presented and gets its point across well without getting disorganised. It's very well laid out, and the information contained within it is very informative and contains a lot of very useful information as well as offering some possible questions on motives. This would be very good for AotW because it gives the reader something different. 
*'''Yes''' for the reasons stated above. LOL. -- {{UserLost_Soul/sig}} 0055, 21 January 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes''' I agree  with Lost Soul. The writing flows, and the layout works well. -{{Userbeardog4314/sig}} 1142, 24 January 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes''' For Lost_Soul's reasons. I really, really like how this article summarizes the qualities of each character without becoming too drawn-out.
**One suggestion, though Provide examples of episodes where these qualities, either good or bad, are tested. This doesn't necessarily have to be in with the qualities themselves, but perhaps a short episode list in the form of a subsection with each character would do the job. -UserPsychoYoshi 2256, 2 February 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes''' I'd like to see more articles dedicated to detailed analysis like this one and Economics.  Before long, I suspect these will be plagiarized into college research papers ).--{{UserDagg/sig}} 2309, 2 February 2007 (PST)

===Jigsaw Puzzles===
* Nominated by --{{UserPandoraX/sig}} 0521, 23 February 2007 (PST)
* I think this is an interesting unsolved mystery going on right now, with the last puzzle being just assembled last week, and the first pictures posted this week, which show a clue that the secret codes are in fact chapter-verse book ciphers.  So far, there's been no luck finding which book it is, though, so I'd love to get more people involved... and it is also just a neat mystery that I don't think many are aware of.
** '''Yes''' - seems pretty interesting. If it got put on, could you write a sample text please Pan? I don't credit myself with knowing much about it as I haven't followed the jigsaw puzzles much --{{UserNickb123/sig}} 0527, 23 February 2007 (PST)
*** Sure, no problem. I am psyched about this new clue, and just tried about 6 possible classic books I found online, unfortunately I don't think I have any leads yet.... --{{UserPandoraX/sig}} 0644, 23 February 2007 (PST)
** '''Yes''' Si, senorita! THese are a fun way to pass time, as well as stretching our minds about the ciphers on the back! (Still waiting o Puzzle !) --{{UserMarik7772003/sig}} 0535, 23 February 2007 (PST)
** '''Yes''' Definately, as you say P, more people that know the more chance there is that we can decipher it --{{Userlewisg/sig}} 0538, 23 February 2007 (PST)
** '''Yes''', lets figure out this puzzle --{{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 0756, 25 February 2007 (PST)

Looks pretty positive so far, so I'll just put out a test introduction if this makes AOTW.
--{{UserPandoraX/sig}} 0752, 25 February 2007 (PST)

===The Others===
* Nominated by --{{UserBlue eagle islander/sig}} 2109, 27 January 2007 (PST)
* One of the most central mysteries on Lost, and a really goodlooking and interseting article.
* '''Yes''' It's a great Lostpedia article and very interesting UserBettyfizzw 1104, 18 February 2007 (PST)
* '''Yes''' - well selected, and has been touched-up nicely. --{{UserGateboy42/sig}} 1352, 2 March 2007 (PST)
* '''Yes''' - Very interesting article. Good prose, and the tables look very spectacular. --{{UserMarik7772003/sig}} 1140, 4 March 2007 (PST)

===Songs featured in Lost===
*Nominated by {{UserSanta/sig}} 2138, 22 December 2006 (PST)
*Rationale A nice multi-faceted topic that showcases a nice encyclopedic article for Lostpedia.  This collection of information is easily the best collection of music, even when compared to all other Lost fansites-- other webpages specializing in Lost's music are not as complete as Lostpedia's article!  Our information also includes detailed information on the music of promotionals, official music videos, and international broadcasts, as well as links to separate articles on TLE and Soundtrack music.  In short, this article nicely demonstrates the power of the wiki-method of community information gathering.
*'''Yes''' - (see rationale) --{{UserSanta/sig}} 2138, 22 December 2006 (PST)
*'''No''' - I think it's too listy for AOTW. If we had a section on what the songs meant (symbolically), then that would make the article much better.  -- {{UserLost_Soul/sig}} 0021, 23 December 2006 (PST)
*'''Not yet''' I agree with Lost Soul. Unlike the content of some list articles that were previously featured, such as Automobiles, most of the songs featured in the show were selected for a reason, and often hold a symbolic significance to the events where they are employed. However, the article remains of good potential, but still needs work to relate it more to the storyline. Please see my explanation above at A-Missions for further details--{{UserNomad/sig}} 0101, 23 December 2006 (PST)
*'''Yes''' Based on the recent evidence of the obvious failure to apply the above suggestions without ending up speculating most of the relations, I change my vote to Yes, given that I believe now that this article currently makes a good AOTW. --{{UserNomad/sig}} 1547, 20 January 2007 (PST)
*Rebuttal - There is no intention in this article to relate to the storyline.  It is simply the best resource on this topic on the entirety of the Internet. It is indeed a list, and is so in-depth it is a list of lists of different subtopics.  It deserves to be highlighted as one of Lostpedia's gems. If there is to be an analysis with regard to storyline, it belongs in a separate analysis article, not this one. --{{UserSanta/sig}} 1320, 23 December 2006 (PST)
*Okay, I've added a "symbolism" column for this article. However, I am a bit uncomfortable adding this in, as it smacks of theory, which belongs on a subpage.  This might be marginally ok for an analytical article, but this article is not in other words the rest of the table in the article is fact, whereas the symbolism is speculation by the editors.  For example what is the symbolism of Make Your Own Kind of Music? Is it that 1) Desmond lives alone by his own rules, or 2) The Island makes your thoughts come true a la Crichton's Sphere (Psychic Projection (theory)), or 3) it just dates the equipment to the 70s?  Your thoughts?  --{{UserSanta/sig}} 0235, 20 January 2007 (PST)
* I think you are waiting for someone to state the obvious, so I'll go ahead and bite.  Theories do not belong on the article page please revert.  I think the article should remain as a page of facts.  This analysis that people are suggesting, should go on a new page, or possibly in a new section of the existing document as long as it is clearly labeled as analysis.--Dagg 0246, 20 January 2007 (PST)
* Agreed with removing the symbolism column, and what I did was put it on the theories page.  Now everyone is welcome to speculate away as to what significance individual songs have to their subtext in the story.  BTW, I do like the page also, it's a tough vote out of all the ones nominated. --{{UserPandoraX/sig}} 1557, 20 January 2007 (PST)
*Wups, are we only supposed to vote for one entry on the page at a time? I think I have yes votes for several now --{{UserSanta/sig}} 2213, 24 January 2007 (PST)

===Hugo "Hurley" Reyes===
* Nominated by {{UserObi-Dan Kenobi/sig}}
* After a long rewrite (and an AA that wasn't very productive) I think that Hurley's page is close to be perfect. Although I'm not objective, his biography includes all the details from all of the three seasons (not including the upcoming episode). It has the right amount of pictures, as well.
*It's good but several pictures look like the aspect ratio is off (squished look).  I think that needs to be corrected first.  {{UserJabrwocky7/sig}} - 1752, 27 February 2007 (PST)
* The pictures were fixed. {{UserObi-Dan Kenobi/sig}} 1350, 10 March 2007 (PST)
*Lookin good!  I think it's Hurley's turn.  {{UserJabrwocky7/sig}} - 1409, 10 March 2007 (PST)
 And your reason is..? {{UserObi-Dan Kenobi/sig}} 1436, 10 March 2007 (PST)
Since when did I have to give reasoning? My answer is '''no'''. {{UserPrincess_DHARMA/sig}}
it is implied at the top by the template. but if you prefer not to give a reason, i guess no-one can force you too, but people would like it. In my case id say '''Yes''', looks a very good article --{{Userlewisg/sig}} 1448, 10 March 2007 (PST)
*Hi PD, this process is not a vote but a discussion. If you have no rationale, your contribution to the process carries less weight. --{{UserSanta/sig}} 1453, 10 March 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes''' nice looking article--{{UserCaptain Insano/sig}} 1450, 10 March 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes''' - agreed, its a nice looking article with quite a bit of information and would be a good featured article.-{{UserMr.Leaf/sig}} 1452, 10 March 2007 (PST)
*'''No''' for now. The article looks nice but is overly long, as a result of a lot of content that does not belong in the summary of his bio. For example there was an entire paragraph to summarize an episode that was irrelevant to Hurley's story, other than the fact that he said "dude" at the end of a scene. Similarly, there is a lot of content that is not substantive in nature, but rather is more just a rehash of dialog, or a summary of action that only peripherally involves Hurley but is not important to his story.  It's a good article though, and could be cleaned up fairy easily, since the changes would mostly be copy editing or subtractive in nature. Will change to yes after cleanup. --{{UserSanta/sig}} 1453, 10 March 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes''' a good article on an important character. Good job Obi. --{{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 1125, 18 March 2007 (PDT)

===American Broadcasting Company===
*Nominated by --{{UserSanta/sig}}
**A former AAA article, this article has many interesting dimensions and lots of nice, well-organized detail, much of it likely being new information to most readers.
*'''Yes''', as above - --{{UserSanta/sig}} 2233, 30 March 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' I agree with Santa's reasoning. Since the Article Attack, the page has grown even more than it had in the past. It has informative information about ABCMedianet, and the employees. I believe that the article will be a great vantage point for lots of readers, even the most experienced ones. It has information on everything related to ABC, and therefore would be a good candidate for AoTW. --{{UserMarik7772003/sig}} 2243, 30 March 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' Very well researched article - definitely deserves AOTW status. --{{UserNickb123/sig}} 1032, 1 April 2007 (PDT)

=== Juliet Burke ===
* Nominated by --{{UserBlue eagle islander/sig}} 2350, 28 March 2007 (PDT)
* A great Other page, and she's a really important character at the moment.
*'''Yes''' - Needs a little cleanup (which I'll help with), but the way it is now is good enough for AOTW. -- UserComedy240 1745, 30 March 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes''' - She has a flashback next week, and the article is nice, so I consider it very appropriate. {{UserThinker/sig}} 2045, 5 April 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' - Good article, next week would be very good timing to have it --{{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 1855, 7 April 2007 (PDT)
'''Yes''' - now that I've removed a huge bio of 3x15, it does look pretty good. It'll be cool for next week, as it'll show how Lostpedia continually updates its articles as I think they'll be a lot of change come Weds (assuming the flashbacks rumours I've heard are true) --{{UserNickb123/sig}} 1021, 8 April 2007 (PDT)

===James "Sawyer" Ford===
* Nominated by {{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 1912, 7 April 2007 (PDT)
* Sawyer is one of the most prominate characters in Lost and his article shows that. It's well-written, long, and has good pictures. I think this is an article we should be proud of. Plus Sawyer is the coolest guy on the Island. ) --{{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 1912, 7 April 2007 (PDT)
**'''Yes''' Model article, organized, and relevant to the current storyline. --{{UserNshs07/sig}} 0726, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

===The Looking Glass===
*Nominated by --UserRhcm123 1706, 21 May 2007 (PDT)
*I think we should nominate this after we learn a bit more about it (post-season finale)
because a very interesting station has been discovered, that prevnets the losties rescue!
*'''Not Yet''' Pretty much everything that we know about the Looking Glass so far is off of a single schematic or is pure speculation. If we learn most everything about it in one episode, and assuming it's well-written, I'm more than willing to change my vote, though. ) -UserPsychoYoshi 2220, 21 May 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' UserComedy240 1152, 27 May 2007 (PDT)

===Charlie Pace===
*Nominated by UserBANBURY DHARMA 0900, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
** Due to his recent death I think it would be fitting to have Charlie as article of the week. This page has great pictures and all that we know of Charlie Pace
*'''Yes''' Good article, well-written, appropriate pictures --{{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 1553, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' A very well written article. I applaud the varing Lostpedia Users for making it that way. I think it would be a good thing. (Not penny's boat!) --UserRhcm123 1853, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' Great article. UserComedy240 1150, 27 May 2007 (PDT)
*'''Not yet''' As the Season 3 section needs to be simplified in line with the level of analysis in Seasons 1 and 2. --{{UserNickb123/sig}} 1216, 27 May 2007 (PDT)
* '''Yes''' Absolutely awesome article. I tried to clean up the Season 3 section a bit, too. -mr_tee_canada
* '''Yes''' Great article! It has many pictures and is well written. The Trivia section is also very interesting. Cant see any reason why this article shouldnt be a featured one. --SteUeRunG! 1556, 23 June 2007 (PDT)

===John Locke===
* Nominated by Userjdray
* I nominate this article due to John Locke's recent passing. May he rest in peace.
** '''Yes''' I hate to break it to you, but he won't die. Nevertheless, I agree it should be a featured article. {{UserThinker/sig}} 0126, 10 May 2007 (PDT)
* '''Yes''' He was passivly declared dead in the Lost podcast after the man behind the curtain. And yes, the man who goes station exploring, hunts boar, gets janked around by the Monster should be a featured man. {{unsigned}}
**Edit Strong Yes Now that we know that he is alive, and has some sort of higher power guidance, and he brought Walt back, he should definetley be featured. --UserRhcm123 1542, 4 June 2007 (PDT)
**'''Comment''' Being a featured article doesn't revolve around whether or not a character is interesting, just died, etc. It's about a well-written, in-depth article that represents the very best there is on Lostpedia. There are a couple episode synopses in Season 3 ({{ep}}, in particular), that should be trimmed, but other than that, looks pretty good to me. -UserPsychoYoshi 2318, 21 May 2007 (PDT)
***'''Change to Yes''' Looks better now, IMO. -UserPsychoYoshi 1410, 31 May 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' UserComedy240 1152, 27 May 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' I'm surprised this hasn't already been featured p --{{UserGateboy42/sig}} 1320, 8 June 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' He died, came back, and is going to be in control. Shouldn't we honor him? --LockeFan

=== {{ep}} ===
*Nominated by {{UserLost_Soul/sig}} 1036, 30 May 2007 (PDT)
**I think that this is a great article that deserves to be article of the week. It is also extremely relevant, seeing as this episode just aired in the UK, US and Ireland, and would show off Lostpedia's quality of episodic articles, as we haven't had one featured for a while.
*'''Neutral''' Completeley neutral to the idea. A great finish to the third season, but is going to leave me scratching my head for 8 months. If i have to though, I will change this to a yes.--UserRhcm123 1547, 4 June 2007 (PDT)
**'''No''' Too big of a spoiler-episode for now.- UserTheAma1 1603, 4 June 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' One of the best trivia sections for an episode article I've ever seen. --{{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 1246, 26 July 2007 (PDT)

===Season 1===
* Nominated by --{{UserOnelastword/sig}} 2014, 5 March 2007 (PST)
* This Season was the genisis of Lost. Exploring how the Islanders were going to survive, get rescued, look for food and the like. This was also the time when friendships and rivalries formed, and some of Lost greatest mysteries spawned. Such as the noise in the jungle (Later discovered to be the Monster), the polar bear, the Hatch, Locke suddenly being able to walk, the whispers...and much much more. Besides that, the article ''could'' help newbies to Lost in discovering all that it holds.
*'''Yes'''--{{UserJohn Locke biggest fan/sig}}
*'''Yes''', very well done article about the season that started it all.-- UserComedy240 1023, 24 March 2007 (PST)
*'''Weak No''' '''No''' I'm not sure how I feel about his one, but I think the summary at the top of the article should be improved, since right now it's just twenty-some sectionboxes. --{{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 1029, 24 March 2007 (PDT)
*Also, I'd like to point out that featured articles are chosen because they are well-written. Considering that there is no season summary at the top (besides a few bullets), and that for all the episode sectionboxes, there is a two sentence description and then a cast list, I personally think this article has a long way to go before it can be considered one of Lostpedia's finest. I would argue that this page's purpose is more of a "portal" or link page to specific articles than an article that stands by itself. Please prove me wrong. --{{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 1901, 21 May 2007 (PDT)
**'''No''' Reasons given by Mr.Crabby. UserComedy240 1153, 27 May 2007 (PDT)
'''Yes (If my vote counted)''' Since we use the same computer, I'm not sure they'll consider my opinion. But I agree with your reasons stated above. --UserUltimateRobert 1253, 8 April 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' well written article, broad topic, overall good choice UserEvil-pineapples 1548, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

===Boone Carlyle===
*Nominated by --UserComedy240 2023, 20 March 2007 (PST)
**This page is very well written, with each paragraph sourced by episode. Lots of pictures, lots of trivia. Important character from back in Season 1. Ironically Boone's article is longer than a lot of characters that lasted longer than he. --UserComedy240
*'''Yes''', Comedy240 did a great job re-writing Boone's article --{{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 1125, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' Poor Boone, sometimes I forget he exist. Ecspecially since the recap shows almost ''''''always'''''' pretend like he never existed. I think we should refresh peoples memories about him. Something that will make new vistiters to the site go "Oh yeah, i forgot all about him." Thus making them read the article, thus letting them see how great the article is, thus getting returning visiters.  --{{UserOnelastword/sig}} 1130, 27 March 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' for reasons stated by above. {{UserBettyfizzw/sig}} 0721, 1 April 2007 (PDT)
*'''Strong No''' Poor Pictures and basically bullet points for the on the Island section. --{{UserDee4leeds/sig}} 0730, 1 April 2007 (PDT)
*'''No''', not right now. It doesn't seem that related. {{UserThinker/sig}} 2044, 5 April 2007 (PDT)
That doesn't even make sense, what are you trying to say? - UserComedy240 1723, 6 March 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' this is a very well-organized page right now. It has the right organization of images, correct and relevant text, etc and so forth. --{{UserMarik7772003/sig}} 1728, 6 April 2007 (PDT)
**'''''Note''''' Just because it "is in the spotlight" or "not related" doesn't discredit or bolster its status as an AoTW. The AoTW is related to the best collection of articles that Lostpedia has to offer, not its relevance to the show. --{{UserMarik7772003/sig}} 1728, 6 April 2007 (PDT)
***Our last two featured articles Sawyer, and Paik Heavy Industries have both been "in the spotlight" though. --{{UserBlue eagle islander/sig}} 1744, 4 May 2007 (PDT)
****Then I think Boone should be the FA during the gap between Season 3 and 4 as nothing is in the spotlight then, and this is a very good article. UserComedy240 1710, 6 May 2007 (PDT)
****And also Juliet, the Barracks, the Jigsaw Puzzles... were also "in the spotlight"! Maybe Mikhail Bakunin should be next ) {{UserThinker/sig}} 0132, 10 May 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''' I think it's a great page and better than many pages about characters that lasted longer in the Island. He was an important character of Season 1 and that page accentuates his deeds in that season. And it has lots of pictures. --UserIceJohnnyPV 0540, 23 June 2007 (PDT)''UnJohnny''
** Not to toot my own horn here, but I was actually the one who initiated the rewrites and reconfiguration of the Boone page. --UserQuint

=== Criticism of Lost ===
*Nominated by {{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 0938, 26 July 2007 (PDT)
*Obviously I'm being a little biased here because I created this article, but here's my rational As far as I'm aware this is the most well-referenced article we have on Lostpedia with fifty-two external links (although another article might have more I didn't check). This article explains fans dislike toward things like Nikki, Paulo, Ana Lucia, Scheduling, No Answers, etc. while remaining neutral. All the external links referenced are from professional critics and people working for Lost or ABC. No regular fans are quoted whatsoever. Out of curiosity I went to over televison/movie wikis (Wookiepedia, Heroes Wiki, Bulbapedia (Pokemon), Battlestar Wiki, Stargate Command, Memory Bata (Star Trek)), and the only article I could find about criticism was Wookiepedia's http// Fan criticism of George Lucas. This is the kind of article that I think seperates Lostpedia from other wikis, we are willing to point out the faults in our favorite show.
*'''Yes''', not only are we willing to point out faults, we point them out well. --{{UserBlue eagle islander/sig}} 0130, 27 July 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes''', gives the site a more professional feel then a bunch of nerds watching every screencap. --{{UserDee4leeds/sig}} 1142, 14 August 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes'''. There will always be a critic, and I would like to see a good page where they could voice their opinions. This would be that page. --UserRhcm123 1929, 16 August 2007 (PDT)
*'''Yes'''. The article is well written and referenced.--{{UserPhil/sig}} 2110, 16 August 2007 (PDT)

* Nominated by UserQuint
* There are so many interesting, well-acted, and intriguing guest stars on Lost that it is hard to single out just one, but I don't think I'm alone in saying that Goodwin made less of a dent and more of a crater on the mythology of Lost. While Ethan, his Fuselodge counterpart, had more episodes and a more pronounced participation in the storyline, Goodwin filled the screen with such a malvoyent grace that was, in a way, more chilling. His story arc was more remnicent of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", with his subtle infiltration and deception of the tail, as well as Brett Cullen's incredible acting deserves a champion spot on the main page.
*You say nothing about the article itself in you summary! --{{UserBlue eagle islander/sig}} 0056, 15 August 2007 (PDT)
*Agreed, this is for featured article, not featured actor. Explain why the article is good and I'll make up my mind. --{{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 0812, 15 August 2007 (PDT)
** The article is well-written, succinct, has good pictures, and is, as I described earlier, of a very interesting topic. I think its important to feature some of the supporting charactors that had a major impact on the storyline but may not be featured too much in the actual show. People should be kept familiar with those charactors like that. I mean, everybody knows who Boone is. UserQuint
**'''Agree''' And carried --{{UserNickb123/sig}} 1005, 26 August 2007 (PDT)

===The Island===
*Nominated by --UserRhcm123 1749, 21 May 2007 (PDT)
*Belive it or not, the Island we know and love, where everything in lost occours, isn't a featured article, despite being viewed almost 151,112 times!
**UPDATE To Mr. Crabby Check the article now. I think the images count will be quite satisfying. (I hope 15 is OK!)
'''Yes''' A great article --UserXR15 2238, 21 May 2007 (PDT)
'''Maybe''' There are only three pictures in the article. Add some more and I'll change my vote to yes. --{{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 0815, 15 August 2007 (PDT)

==Rejected Nominations 2006==
*  See Article of the Week Nominations Archive/2006-reject==Rejected Nominations 2007==
'''Note  A rejection does not mean the article can not be re-nominated.'''

*Nominated by UserMr. Crabby. Crabby 1603, 17 January 2007 (PST)
*This is an extremely well written article and I think it's a perfect candidate for Article of the Week
*Note Working on this article now, as its synopsis has become bloated, and essentially a paraphrase of the entire transcript (instead of a summary).  I'm also trying a new format for the flashbacks.  Will report back when finished, it should be a few days. --{{UserSanta/sig}} 2107, 17 January 2007 (PST)
* Thanks for working on it, Santa, as I agree on the summary problem (bloat). A lot of these longer articles are not necessarily better, because they don't focus on important points, they just keep adding more and more info, which would probably make most readers' eyes glaze over. --{{UserPandoraX/sig}} 0439, 19 January 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes''' - See article talk for changes. If it still seems somewhat long, remember that this is a double 2 hour episode; most episodes would be half this length. --{{UserSanta/sig}} 0224, 20 January 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes''' - Took a look at it after the changes, it looks great. --{{UserPandoraX/sig}} 0707, 23 January 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes''' - This could be the featured article for the first week of February when Lost returns in the US.  --{{UserJabberwock/sig}} - 0727, 23 January 2007 (PST)
**Though I do think the numbering in the article should go.  The Numbers are bad.  --{{UserJabberwock/sig}} - 0759, 23 January 2007 (PST)
***I myself pesonally am not a fan of the Numbers either --{{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 1228, 23 January 2007 (PST)
*'''No''' - Way to messy since being edited. It should be reverted to the article before christmas. --{{UserDee4leeds/sig}} 0736, 23 January 2007 (PST)
**Two notes 1) First of all the episode is a double-episode, and is twice as long.  Given that the previous version was no better than a bad paraphrasing of the transcript, it was totally unreadable IMHO. If you disagree, I request that you http// take a look and actually try to read the old version from beginning to end, noting especially the "realtime events" section.  (Don't just browse, I mean ''really'' try to read it word for word to the very end, then try to do the same with the latest version.)  It's bad enough in a normal episode, but borders on unreadable for a double header episode, at least for me-- In that case I'd rather read the transcript, it would be easier to read, contain fewer errors, and be more complete.  2) The numbering was an experiment, and here's the rationale Unlike realtime events, the Flashback scenes ''are not a continuous narrative''.  The scenes are often tidbits scattershot in time and place. Again this is a double episode; a normal episode might only have 4 numbered items, and would clean up existing episode articles that are currently not very tight in their writing. I believe that four numbers is reasonable, and is sensible for emphasizing that the flashback paragraphs do, in fact, jump around, and are often almost totally unrelated. However for now I've removed the numbering and rewritten the text to give the illusion of a continuous narrative with filler text "Some time later..."; I'm less a fan of this forced filler text than I am the Numbers.  --{{UserSanta/sig}} 2112, 24 January 2007 (PST)
***OK I've reformatted the flashbacks section and I agree with you guys and like it better w/out the Numbers. The presentation suits the double episode's lengthy content well. --{{UserSanta/sig}} 2130, 24 January 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes''', hard work and a generally informative article needs to be rewarded. --{{UserGateboy42/sig}} 0639, 23 February 2007 (PST)
*'''No''', the multiple images per section makes the text alignment a real issue when trying to read the text --{{UserNickb123/sig}} 0652, 23 February 2007 (PST)
*'''No''' Agree with comments like Nicks. --{{Userlewisg/sig}} 0654, 23 February 2007 (PST)

*Nominated by {{Userbeardog4314/sig}} 1142, 24 January 2007 (PST)
*Rationale This is article is a short, but good, read. It pokes a little fun at the fans, without being harsh, and I learned a fun new word. The writing is concise, but well phrased, and the organization is a good example of what an article on Lostpedia should look like.
*'''Yes''' Good writing, good layout, good idea. 'Nuff said. -{{Userbeardog4314/sig}} 1142, 24 January 2007 (PST)
*'''No''' Good article, but too short and not enough content to be AoTW. --{{UserBlue eagle islander/sig}} 2206, 24 January 2007 (PST)
*Comment To me, length of the article is not related to quality, and not a prerequisite for AoTW, whereas good writing and a illuminating a topic of interest is--{{UserSanta/sig}} 1058, 25 January 2007 (PST)
*'''No''' I do like this article but I'm sorry I didn't take a close enough look the first time because I agree with blue eagle islander that the ''content'' is lacking. More examples outside of Lostpedia would strengthen it, as well as more illustration of the different types/classes of apophenia. --{{UserSanta/sig}} 0239, 26 January 2007 (PST)
*'''No''' This is my one of my favorite articles on Lostpedia, but I'd like to see it become even better before it becomes a featured article. Maybe we can find a way to get the directors to say the word ''apophenia'' in a podcast? ) --{{UserDagg/sig}} 2247, 24 January 2007 (PST)
* Hah, that would be cool indeed, but I'll bet they'd get 100 questions the next week about it. --{{UserPandoraX/sig}} 0521, 23 February 2007 (PST)

===Mittelos Bioscience===
* Nominated by --UserJabadibah
* It's something new thats popped up in LOST and i think it should also be something new to pop up on the nominated article section on the homepage, there are a lot of people interested in this new sort of company thats appeared in lost, and they'll be interested to read about it especially if they really didin't understand where it played a part in {{ep}}. What do you think?

* '''No''', too short an article and too new a mystery to be featured. --{{UserBlue eagle islander/sig}} 0258, 14 February 2007 (PST)

*'''No''', for exactly what Blue Eagle Islander said --{{UserMr. Crabby/sig}} 1229, 14 February 2007 (PST)

*'''No''', agreed with already-stated comments. -UserPsychoYoshi 1639, 14 February 2007 (PST)

*Nominated by {{UserMarik7772003/sig}} 0652, 17 December 2006 (PST)
*Rationale I believe that this is a very good article. It is very pretty, illustrated with pictures and such. The table also looks very nice.
*Possible sample text Drop 42 allegorical characters on a deserted island with little hope of rescue and limited resources, and you've got a recipe for conflict. Throw in a few love triangles and a box of guns, and you can count on some deep seated feuds. Take a look at some of the rivalries on Lost, some that are incredibly potent, and some that are, well, out there... '''(Rivalries)'''
 '''No'''.  Interesting article with lots of potential, but not quite ready to be featured.  
* Language is too informal and imprecise; e.g., "alleghorical characters."  It hasn't been established that LOST is an alleghory.  
* There's some misplaced humor, such as "Stealing kidneys may disqualify him from the "Father of the Year" award," which is against Theory_policy.  
* Rivalry implies http// competition, which is a special sort of conflict involving a common object of desire.  Jack and Sawyer seem to be rivals for Kate's attention; Jack, Sawyer, Locke and Sayid could be considered rivals for leadership of the survivors.  The article doesn't adequately cover these rivalries, but it does cover a number of conflicts that aren't rivalries.  As written, the article is more appropriately titled, "Character conflicts."  As such, it is almost comprehensive, but it does miss some conflicts, such as the important, complex one between Jack and Kate.  
* The format of the article is strange.  It consists of a table and a gallery, with no lead section or any other text.  
* In summary, I think this article needs to be reconceptualized either as rivalries or conflicts, then discussion added, the gallery incorporated with the table, and the chosen subject covered more comprehensively. UserRennerboy 1124, 17 December 2006 (PST)
'''No''' Too informal, Would be a good candidate for Article Attack though. --{{UserDee4leeds/sig}} 1034, 18 December 2006 (PST)
*'''No''' - however this article has potential, but I'd rather not feature it atm. --{{UserSanta/sig}} 0307, 19 December 2006 (PST)
*It is an honor just to be nominated!  Seriously, I do know the article needs some work, and it is a melange of feuds, rivalries and conflicts (rather than the strictly-physical Fights article).  I don't personally have time to "attack" it myself, but I'd appreciate any work done to improve it while still keeping the original concept  to track the emotional/philosophical/psychological battles between the characters. --UserAmberjet11 1030, 19 December 2006 (PST)
*I think the article has a lot of potential, so I reworked it using some of the above suggestions. It probably needs a little help, but see if that works any better. -{{Userbeardog4314/sig}} 1308, 19 December 2006 (PST)
*'''Comment''' I've only glanced, but personally don't see a problem with this article, and agree with beardog that it has a lot of potential to be a really great AOTW worthy page. I'll follow what you guys say, but I hope it gets re-nominated soon cause I really like it --{{UserNickb123/sig}} 1515, 22 December 2006 (PST)
*Agreed. After a quick perusal, I rather like this article.  Has the article improved since mid December 2006? I mainly scanned the headlines, so maybe I missed something obvious, will take another look later. --{{UserSanta/sig}} 0244, 20 January 2007 (PST)
'''Yes''' Honestly, this is a very tough field of nominations, because I could put down "Yes" for 4 or 5 of the items nominated for AOTW this week. --{{UserPandoraX/sig}} 1555, 20 January 2007 (PST)
*'''Change to Yes''' --{{UserDee4leeds/sig}} 0445, 4 February 2007 (PST)
'''No''' Hasn't been updated for a while --{{UserBlue eagle islander/sig}} 0121, 19 February 2007 (PST)
* Though, to be fair, LOST was on a three month hiatus.  It's not like there was anything new to update for awhile. --UserAmberjet11 1227, 26 February 2007 (PST)
'''No''' - seems like more of a side article to me. There are many articles out there that deserve the article-of-the-day title more than this one. I say at least revise and expand, --{{UserGateboy42/sig}} 0638, 23 February 2007 (PST)
*'''No''' Although the article is nice-looking, I feel that an article like this is too subjective. Where do we draw the line for where a "rivalry" begins and ends?  Characters might "end" their rivalries from the viewpoint of one user and continue to feud from another's perspective (say the characters have a disagreement after the "main" conflict is over, for example). Too many gray areas. -UserPsychoYoshi 1108, 8 March 2007 (PST)
*'''No''' - Same reason as Psycho Yoshi, to hard to define. -- UserComedy240 1739, 30 March 2007 (PST)
* You are right about the gray areas -- though there's only so subjective a rivalry can be if we're basing it on what we see on-screen.  Obviously characters are going to bicker even after their "main" conflict is over (see Hurley vs. Sawyer), but I think we can tell when a conflict reaches its most climactic point.  However, if you find that many of these things are too hard to define, maybe we should take this to the discussion page of the Rivalries article and, well, discuss them!  -) --UserAmberjet11 1231, 1 April 2007 (PDT)
* Afterthought  I think it's neat that the Yes's vs. the No's in this section comprise the longest-running rivalry on the Nominations page!  ;-) --UserAmberjet11 1233, 1 April 2007 (PDT)
*I think the vote stands 4 Yes's ( Marik7772003, Dee4leeds, Amberjet11, and PandoraX)  , and 6 No's (Rennerboy, Santa, Blueeagleislander, Gateboy42, PsychoYoshi, and Comedy240) . - UserComedy240 1252, 1 April 2007 (PDT)

===The Monster/Theories===
* Nominated by --{{UserBlue eagle islander/sig}} 0012, 6 February 2007 (PST)
* I don't think this'll get much support, but what do you think? A theory page featured? I think it could work.
*'''Yes''' It's different, nice layout and good promotion for the theory tab. --{{UserDee4leeds/sig}} 0448, 11 February 2007 (PST)
*Brilliant idea, it will promote the theory sections and this is a really well thought out page. Great idea! {{unsigned}}
*'''Not Yet''' I think this page looks great and the idea of having a theory page as AOTW sounds good for reasons stated above. But I think the only thing that makes this a good page is the box at the top, the rest of the page needs images to make it look better, IMO. --{{Userlewisg/sig}} 0657, 23 February 2007 (PST)
*'''Not quite yet but probably with a little work...''' I actually like the idea of doing a theory page as AOTW, too.  It's a good example of a well-organized one, as well.  I will probably change this vote after next week, with a few tweaks, it would be interesting. --{{UserPandoraX/sig}} 0949, 23 February 2007 (PST)
*'''Yes.''' I think having a theory page featured would open up the discussion for it a lot more.UserPkmnTrainerJ, 10 March 2007 (PST)
*'''No''', a theory page is a good idea, but it is hard to determine what a good theory page is. Maybe with a little more work. -- UserComedy240 1600, 28 March 2007 (PST)
*'''Not yet''' It's come a long way, but still needs some cleanup and organization before it can become an AOTW.  --{{UserNshs07/sig}} 0722, 13 April 2007 (PDT)
*'''No''' I dont really think we should have a theory page. With people constantly editing, and messing with it, and adding their thoughts and opinions, it would get a bit cluttered.
Plus, i just dont really think putting non-cannon work as featured is good. maybe people will start to believe it! --UserRhcm123 1544, 4 June 2007 (PDT)
*'''No''', This page is only good because of the sightings box at the top.--UserMonkeyluck 2304, 5 September 2007 (PDT)