Talk:Lucas North/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: weebiloobil (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My name is weebiloobil, and I'll be reviewing this article. For reference, the Good Article criteria can be found here. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a comment, and I promise not to shout at you. Good luck! - weebiloobil (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: I'd thought I should let you know that ninth series of Spooks, which Lucas North is a part of, is currently ongoing (three episodes aired out of eight). Would that become an issue for the final outcome of the article? -- Matthew RD 23:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as next week's episode seems to have some potential implications for Lucas, I suppose there is a chance that a very major incident could impact the outcome; however, point 5 of the Quick Fail criteria states "The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint."; I would not personally designate a 1-hour episode of Spooks a week as "rapidly unfolding", as it allows plenty of time for constructive edits to be made between episodes, and we do not even have a "definite endpoint", as this Lucas storyline could go on over several series. The only mention of this in the Good Article criteria is criterion 5, the article is "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]" I believe that it is very unlikely that an incident will arise where the article is changing significantly from day to day; even if there is a big revelation within the series, it will probably not change the basic infrastructure of the article. If you yourself feel there might be any concerns about doing a review now, I am more than happy to provide an initial review now, then leave the article on hold until the end of the series (i.e. about 5 weeks).

Personally, I want the real Lucas to have been kidnapped at the end of the last series, and for the current Lucas to be Malcolm after extensive plastic surgery. Tariq's good, but he's no Malcolm - weebiloobil (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we should carry on now rather than wait five weeks is best, because there does not seem to be a stability issue at the moment, (no edit wars) hopefully won't have much of one as the rest of the series unfolds. -- Matthew RD 13:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hello again! I'm pleased to say that this is mostly a very good article, but there are a few issues that could do with being resolved:

The description for File:Lucas north.jpg says 'screenshot', whereas the copyright licensing says it is a promotional image
The sentence "When it was announced Spooks was to return for an eighth series in December 2008, the BBC Press Office revealed Armitage will return also.[34]" is somewhat unnecessary now we are in the 9th series, and he is still here
Ditto "Armitage will return as Lucas North in the upcoming ninth series, which will air during Autumn 2010.[21]"
From the 'Creation and Casting section': "Early onto the casting suggestions, they already focused on Richard Armitage..." - this should either be 'they focused' or 'they had already'; it should be 'into' not 'onto' as well
There's no need for the comma before 'Ancient of Days'
From 'Reception': "A reviewer from Daemon's TV was "intrigued" by the closing scenes in which Vaughn confronts him and leaves him with a briefcase" should really have something qualifying it as the first episode of the ninth series
The article says the character was met with "general praise", but there are no bad reviews; does this mean he was met with unanimous praise, or is the article omitting some bad reviews?

Aside from these, the article is fine; the level of sourcing is particularly good, and there are no problems with WP:WAF. I'll be back in a week or so to see how you're getting on; in the meantime, feel free to contact me, or leave any queries here. Bye! - weebiloobil (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have dealt with the issues;

I changed the description to a promotional image, and included a source.
Removed statement.
Removed statement.
Reword and done.
Removed comma.
Feel it'd be safe to remove the review.
He was met with unanimous praise; I could find nothing saying he was a bad character. -- Matthew RD 14:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All seems in order; I'm now passing the article, congratulations! For further improvement, I would recommend keeping on top of any changes to the character, and making sure the article is fully updated at the end of each series, so we don't get any more of the outdated "...will return in Autumn 2010" kind of stuff.

Now that this article has been promoted, why not consider reviewing another one yourself? </shameless plug>

If you have any questions about this review, or in the future have another article that has languished at WP:GAN for a long time, don't hesitate to contact me. Well done! - weebiloobil (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]