Talk:Adam Carter

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.

Adam Carter 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 8, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

BBC Mid‑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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-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: Spooks Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Spooks task force.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Untitled[edit]

I have refered this to Wiki Project Spooks for cleanup. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I'm spoilering, but shouldn't this episode be written in the past tense following Season 7 episode 1? Amzi (Talk To Me) 10:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adam Carter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 4, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I did some copyediting. Now it is a little bit better.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Fails here at present. The Reception section is a bit short. There is tons of significant coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources about the character, reception of the writing behind the character, reception behind the acting of the character, probably not just in news, media, magazines, etc, but also books, more info on that award, the awards ceremony ... - the Reception section just needs to be expanded, a lot more. Double, even triple the size and the amount of WP:RS secondary sources used in that subsection.

4. Neutral point of view?: No issues here.

5. Article stability? Inspection of article edit history and talk page edit history seems fine.

6. Images?: Fails at present. File:Adam carter spooks.jpg - image needs more info on source, how it was acquired, where it was acquired from, etc.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I have expanded on the reception section, but I will continue my hunt for more sources to hopefully get a third paragraph to cover some of the other issues. -- Matthew RD 19:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, another paragraph, for a total size increase of triple, would do nicely. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed[edit]

Thanks so much for addressing above GA Reviewer recommendations. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Carter. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716082022/http://tv.sky.com/interview-rupert-penry-jones to http://tv.sky.com/interview-rupert-penry-jones

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Carter. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610063909/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-interviews/2008/12/27/former-spooks-star-rupert-penry-jones-returns-to-action-in-new-version-of-39-steps-86908-20997823/ to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-interviews/2008/12/27/former-spooks-star-rupert-penry-jones-returns-to-action-in-new-version-of-39-steps-86908-20997823/

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) 04:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]