Talk:Tom Quinn (Spooks)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found Jezhotwells (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Macfadyen gained recognition for playing Quinn. Critical reaction towards the character were generally mixed, though fan reception was more positive. What sort of recognition? Perhaps these two sentences should be conflated.
 * Series creator David Wolstencroft believed that writing Tom was the most fun and most hard working because he was the centric character in the series, and he leads the stories. "most hard working"? Perhaps "and the hardest work"
 * Concerning Tom's relationship with Ellie,  You can't start a sentence with "concerning"
 * When playing Tom Quinn, Matthew Macfadyen just followed what is scripted, and does not deviate by adding a biography of his character because he does not find doing so useful. Change of tense, inconsistent.
 * During production of the first series, Macfadyen, along with co stars Keeley Hawes and David Oyelowo were weary playing the lead and experienced characters in their mid-twenties, but since felt they earned the right to be in Spooks Do you mean "wary of", "weary" means tired.
 * While filming scenes for episode three and five of series one, Macfadyen burst a blood vessel on one of his eyes; in order to hide it, Macfadyen wore sunglasses while filming those scenes poor grammar.
 * OK, this fails on the reasonably good prose criterion.
 * Please take it away and get it copy-edited by someone with a command of good plain English. GAN is not a substitute for peer review.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Failed as badly written. Please take to peer review before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Failed as badly written. Please take to peer review before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Failed as badly written. Please take to peer review before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)