Talk:Spooks series 1

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Spooks series 1 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
December 24, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television: British / Episode coverage / Spooks Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the Spooks task force (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spooks (series 1)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to handle this review. I'll do a close readthrough today or tomorrow, noting any issues I see on my first pass, and then begin the formal checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First readthrough[edit]

"In this table, the number in the first column refers to the episode's number within the entire series, whereas the number in the second column indicates the episode's number within the first series. " I'm not sure I see the value of structuring the table like this, when these two numbers are obviously the same. I realize this has probably just been cut-and-pasted from other Spooks articles, but for this standalone article, I'm not sure it makes sense.

Would you prefer if I removed it? -- Matthew RD 18:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd suggest removing one of the redundant columns there. It's not a factor under the GA criteria, though, so it's up to you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"where MI5 learn of Kane's next intended target" -- "where" doesn't seem like the correct word here--what place is this referring to?
"Throughout the investigation behind Maynard" -- I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Does this mean, perhaps, "through the investigation into Maynard"?
"that he is a CIA asset"-- Maynard, Jools, or Harry? I assume Maynard is meant here.
"due to his "radical" and "provocative" playwrights in his past works before Spooks
"The series went through research by the writers." --I've cut this sentence, as it seems close to meaningless. In any case, the fact that there's some research involved has been abundantly established.
"from their sources" --from whose sources? Tom and Patrick's? The actors who play them?
"have temptations in order to get spare money" -- I'm not sure what this means. Maybe just "are tempted by money"?

Clarified all the above issues. -- Matthew RD 18:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very comprehensive on the first pass--nice work. I'll begin the checklist in the morning; in the meantime, take a look at the above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"it allowed the producers to rewrite scenes to take account of the event to show the audience Spooks's goal of fighting terrorism" -- did the producers rewrite the scenes themselves? This is a little unclear. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. -- Matthew RD 18:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good, and spotchecks for plagiarism reveal no issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article is thoroughly sourced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is very thorough.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is overlong at 60kb of readable prose (see WP:PAGESIZE), and could have cuts without losing anything significant for most readers. Details like "Brenton came up with the idea of a plot to blow up a nuclear power station after reading an internet page on the subject", "The actor was also interested in performing with a different local Irish accent", or "Brenton was pleased to write the episode where Tom finally admits his true occupation, though Brenton had initial difficulties working out how Tom tells her" seem truly trivial. But I do think this article meets this criterion well enough to pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	All opinions about the show appear to be clearly sourced, and none given undue weight.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good work on a Good Article

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spooks (series 1). 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 00:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]