Talk:Jack Fingleton/GA1
GA Reassessment
[edit]This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In all a very good article let down a little by prose deficiencies. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- The prose could use quite a bit of work, as it is a little weak in places. I give it 5/10 but this could easily rise with a simple read through and copyedit.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
Coining of the expression "tell-all"
[edit]I've just come across a claim that Jack Fingleton was probably the coiner, in 1947, of the adjective "tell-all", used to describe some highly revealing exposé or biography.
I read this in Frank Devine's long-running "That's Language" column in the Weekend Australian, in the edition of 25-26 March 2000, subtitled "Site for sore eyes". The main thrust of the column was about Devine's discoveries on browsing the Oxford English Dictionary online for the first time.
I looked for some confirmation of this coining, but drew a blank. Does anyone know in what circumstances Fingleton came up with it; or whether an earlier attribution has come to light in the past 13 years? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 09:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)