Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom Quinn (Spooks)/archive1

Tom Quinn (Spooks)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed GAN, and I was told to peer review it to see if there could be any grammatical improvements to the article. Thanks, Matthew RD 14:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like an interesting character, but I can see why this did not pass GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

First off, peer review is not for fixing problems as much as it is for identifying them. While I agree that this needs a copyedit, PR is not the place where that will happen (there not many reviewers and there are currently 22 articles in the PR backlog, which have been waiting for reviews at least 4 days). You can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors or at the list of people willing to do copyedits listed at the bottom of Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers. I will try to point out some rough spots in the language, but note that the GAN already listed several problem spots with the prose. One problem with a copy edit is that there are places where it is just not clear what is meant, so a mere copyedit is not enough, the meaning will also have to be determined.
A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Pauline Fowler is an FA about a character from a British TV series and it seems like it would be a good model article for this one.
The lead seems to be fairly brief and seems like it could expanded. One idea for expansion is that the lead needs to be a summary of the whole article - could more be said on the character's development in the lead? I would say in the lead that the second episode of the third season is his last appearance in the show. I would also mention the number of episodes in which he appeared and at least the years when the character appeared on the series (perhaps even the dates of the original airings of his first and last appearances).
Problem sentence During the second series, the producers were unsure of whether Macfadyen would return for the third; his character was originally killed off in the second series finale, though Macfadyen would later ~~confirm~~ [decide?] to appear in the first two episodes of series three. First off the grammar is rough and I have indicated some changes I would make. The other problem is that it contradicts the article in the "Character arc" section, where it says he is wounded and escapes into the North Sea at the end of Series 2. It sounds like it was a cliffhanger ending - the viewer did not know for sure if he were alive or dead until Series 3 premiered.
I have never seen this show, though I did read the episode summaries here on Wikipedia for the episodes this character appeared in. The "Character arc" section seems to focus mostly on his love life, and not very much on his role as a spy. Even the very brief series summaries in the Spooks article here has more on his role as a spy (not revealing information even though his fellow officer was tortured to death with a deep fryer) than this does. I would also mention his behavior as a chief / section head in the I Spy Apocalypse episode in Series 2 - "Tom receives top marks for his leadership skills." I also think the reason he left as a character needs to be made clearer - he sabotaged an operation because he did not like what was being done to an innocent man.
Spell out abbreviations like IT
There is very little critical reception about the character himself - only two critics are quoted and they seem to be from fairly minor sources (Movie Freak and Enterline Media - neither has an article here). It seems like this is a pretty popular series and I find it hard to believe there was no newspaper or magazine coverage that mentioned the charater at the time.
As an example of the prose problems, I will look at one paragraph, the first in "Conceptual history"
- Some things aren't even phrases I've heard of "centric character"?
- The next sentence in the paragraph also has problems "Wolstencroft wanted to write Tom's cover story whilst in a relationship with Ellie to work in IT, because in real life people would be reluctant to ask questions about this field of work.[23]" The subject is Wolstencroft, so it makes it sound like he was in a relationship with Ellie at the time, plus there are other problems. Perhaps something like Wolstencroft chose a job in Information Technology (IT) as the cover story Tom used in his relationship with Ellie, because he felt that in real life people are reluctant to ask questions about IT work.[23]
- I reallly just don't understand this "To portray the character, actor Matthew Macfadyen followed what is scripted, and did not deviate by adding a biography of his character because he did not find doing so useful." I think it refers to the practice some actors have of making up a character biography / background to help them in their role?
- My guess is that this is a paraphrase - I really don't understand it either. If it is a paraphrase, perhaps using all or part of the actual quote might be clearewr "Macfadyen was keen to explore the parts of Tom from within him for influence.[22]"

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ruhrfisch, for taking the time to review the article. I have dealt with a lot of the issues, and I can tell you misunderstood some of the statements (just proves my sloppy writing on the article). For instance, it was not Tom who was wounded, but Harry. I have since tried to rectify them. -- Matthew RD 16:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]