# Talk:Lucas North

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lucas North/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: weebiloobil (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)
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)


### 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)

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)
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)

As a linguist — really? Does the writer of this article have any idea how utterly impossible becoming fluent in a language in less than a year is? 86.129.43.245 (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It is copied from a source, but maybe what Armitage was referring to was that he learned to speak as if he was fluent. I also don't believe anything is impossible after learning for a year. -- Matthew RD 12:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is this all "Lucas", "Harry", etc when you'd usually expect to see "North", er, "Potter" or whoever? Is there some convention on this? Otherwise I worry that it sounds a bit matey. And North is not my friend, especially after that last episode... thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Lucas is being described in the article as being dead, yet the ending of the episode is ambiguous, as is typical of a cliffhanger ending, and did not make clear that he died.  In an interview with the Mail, which was updated and reposted on Nov. 5, he acknowledges he doesn't know the fate of his character, which makes clear there is no definitive end to Lucas' story.  I removed the references to his having committed suicide, and his last appearance, was reverted by an editor claiming the source was dated (which it is not), and have restored the removal.  Describing Lucas as dead before the show makes it clear is speculative, and falls under WP:OR.  The interview cited is far more definitive, and reliable.  Drmargi (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's severely taking that source out of context. Nowhere in the source does it claim that Lucas's end is ambiguous and that Armitage doesn't know his character's fate now, it merely claims that Armitage was unaware of his character's fate before he filmed the final scene. Those are two completely different things. Relevant bit from the source:
And the same can be said of the actor playing him. Six-footer Richard likes to be in control and prefers to know what’s going to happen to the characters he’s playing. 
He says: ‘I had to go with the flow, as I realised you never knew what was going to happen to your character. You often get new scripts the night before you’re due to film them. It’s a bit like being a real spy. They have to adapt and so does the cast of Spooks.
That makes this source useful for an addition to development to say "Armitage was unclear on his character's fate even shortly before filming the final scene", but not for saying "Lucas North's fate is unclear". Honestly, this "produce a body" idea is quite ridiculous and is reading faaaar too much into something that is ultimately nothing more than an attempt at tense cinematography than an encyclopedia entry should be involved with. Also performed one extra rv for which I apologise, it was before I realised a comment was posted here. Lets try to find some consensus on talk instead. -- Sabre (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The trouble is, you're basing your statements in the article on your interpretation of the events, and I'd argue that's where the reading far too much into events comes in.  What Armitage is saying in the reference is that the episode ending is ambiguous.  He has the script, is about to shoot the scene, and doesn't know what it means -- does Lucas live or die?  He didn't know when he was interviewed, and wasn't likely to find out for some time after the episode was in the can (through post.)  Why keep him in the dark if the producers know Lucas' fate?  It's far more likely the producers hadn't made up their minds or were waiting to hear if they got another season than they were keeping it from Richard Armitage for some other reason.
We don't even know if Lucas-as-John went off the building, just that Harry looked over the edge in response to the car alarm he heard.  That's typical of a cliffhanger ending, and this one is even more ambiguous than the explosion at the end of last season.  They've also introduced a plot line about Harry's need to clean up Section D from the inside, and the character played by Vincent Regan, who is an internal affairs expert.  Should Spooks get another season, there's already a story set up that focuses on pursuing John Bateman.  There's far too much ambiguous here to say definitively that Lucas/John is dead, or that he's made his last appearance in the show.  Before that statement can be made, you need a reliable source, and that's not the episode.  Drmargi (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree there is currently far too much ambiguity regarding Lucas' fate, but should it be pointed out that it can easily assumed that he is dead, by he sudden disappearance, sounds on the street below and Harry's and the others' assumed reaction. I think that would be the normal reaction by most of the audience. SilvestertheCat (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
But that's what we're being lead to assume, not what we know.  All we can report to an encyclopedic standard is what we know.  BTW, please do not edit another user's post, even if there are egregious spelling or grammar errors.  Bear in mind, too, that not all posters are speakers of British English; my use of ambiguous v. ambiguity is not only grammatically correct in American English, but semantically preferable given what I wanted to say.  Drmargi (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I know that, I just thought it would be a good idea to report the fact that that is what the audience is possibly lead to assume. That is an undeniable and (if need be) sourced fact. I am not wanting to report speculation, I am wanting to report that the speculative thought that Lucas is dead is what is possibly wanted by the people who made the show. I think it is an interesting and useful note. SilvestertheCat (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
We now have a verifiable, reliable source that confirms Richard Armatige thinks the character is dead.  The out-of-context previous interview is no longer needed. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please visit Spooks discussion page to help form a consensus. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

He was NEVER "Head of Section D"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.166.249 (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lucas North. 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/20110716082533/http://tv.sky.com/interview-richard-armitage to http://www.tv.sky.com/interview-richard-armitage
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121112150813/http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/tv_and_showbiz/s/1072442_time_to_get_spooked_again to http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/tv_and_showbiz/s/1072442_time_to_get_spooked_again
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)