Talk:Tom Quinn (Spooks)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Tom Quinn (Spooks) 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
Date Process Result
October 17, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
October 17, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
October 31, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
November 10, 2010 Good article reassessment Not listed
Current status: Good article

Shouldn't this be on the Disambiguation page?


Untitled[edit]

"The phrase Tom Quinn has now become an expression to define someone who refuses to pay their t.v. licence. For example "he is a right tom Quinn" The use of the phrase derives from the phrase tom-foolery and the word quinn meaning t.v. in irish."

I'm not sure how to move text, could someone point me in the right direction? (Very new to this...) Thanks DavidCh0 10:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tom_Quinn"

This contribution to the discussion page was deleted (with the rest of the page content) by 81.101.118.41 without comment. The page content it refers to had been deleted by another editor on the grounds that it was untrue. 81.101.118.41 reinstated it without comment. I am not impressed. DavidCh0 13:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Rumours[edit]

Any sources on the mentioned rumour? Mainly because there have been rumours every year since 2004 about the original cast.. I'm going to remove it soon. ¬_¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilso72 (talkcontribs) 15:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In-universe[edit]

This is tagged as in-universe. Is the plot summary as currently is too in-universe? RJFJR (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tom Quinn (Spooks)/GA1. 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[edit]

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.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Failed as badly written. Please take to peer review before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Heading[edit]

"Reaction towards the character by fans were positive, though critics criticised Macfadyen's portrayal." == both claims need citations -- otherwise, they have no business being here. A little professionalism, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.119.28 (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Want citations? Look at the reception section, you'de find fans like the character but the critics don't, they're sourced. Lead sections do not require citations, they summarise the rest of the article. -- Matthew RD 14:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Role in final episode of tenth series[edit]

Is it worth mentioning his specific role in that episode, as the apparant assassin of the head of the Russian ultra-nationalist group? Fluffaduck (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Insulting comments by Newshound[edit]

Wikipedia is based upon mutual respect and everyone remaining polite. Changing the edit of Cziltang Mexico and citing "removed incomprehensible goober fan boy edit" as the reason is childish and infantile.

Don't like an edit feel free to change it, but don't act like a moron unless you want your account shut down.

--195.225.189.243 (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think being insulted counts as a proper reason for reversion. And also a lot of what was said was just speculating. All we really know for sure is that Tom arrives, meets with this guy, and the rest is left up to our imaginations. From the reviews I've seen, some believe he was going to assassinate him. Some others think differently. -- Matthew RD 17:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tom Quinn (Spooks)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 00:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Issues:

  • Character arc: Unlink Russia per WP:OVERLINK
  • Conceputal history: Should be a comma after "After a seven year abstance, in October 2011".

Good work, on hold for now. TBrandley 00:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reviewing! -- Matthew RD 21:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Quinn (Spooks). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)