# Talk:Jack Fingleton

I've promoted this. A couple of things:-

It deals with the topic in a way which is neutral, and the language is interesting yet concise.
Although some may turn an eye up at five references, it is sufficient given the time era of this person, and all the material in the article is referenced to one of these five.
I'd love to see an image, and it may be possible to get one from Picture Australia as PD-old.
Cheers, Daniel 08:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Search. Daniel 08:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Jack Fingleton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In all a very good article let down a little by prose deficiencies. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
The prose could use quite a bit of work, as it is a little weak in places. I give it 5/10 but this could easily rise with a simple read through and copyedit.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 

I've just come across a claim that Jack Fingleton was probably the coiner, in 1947, of the adjective "tell-all", used to describe some highly revealing exposé or biography. 
I read this in Frank Devine's long-running "That's Language" column in the Weekend Australian, in the edition of 25-26 March 2000, subtitled "Site for sore eyes".  The main thrust of the column was about Devine's discoveries on browsing the Oxford English Dictionary online for the first time.
I looked for some confirmation of this coining, but drew a blank.  Does anyone know in what circumstances Fingleton came up with it; or whether an earlier attribution has come to light in the past 13 years?  --  Jack of Oz [Talk] 09:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)