Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pauline Fowler/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:55, 26 July 2007.

Pauline Fowler[edit]

This is an article about the longrunning character on the British soap opera EastEnders, who just left the show last year after a 22-year run. Many of the soap opera articles on Wikipedia are a bit of a mess, so we've been revving up Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas to try and get a handle on things, and this is our first major project. Many editors have worked on this particular article, so that we could have a solid example of what a soap opera character article should look like. To my knowledge this was the first ever soap character article to reach Good status. It has also gone through a Peer Review, and, with the community's permission, I'd like to see if it's ready for FA. --Elonka 02:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I had actually read through this article on my own and voiced concerns with Elonka, and she has met my expectations. I think this is a wonderful piece of work and needs to be elevated. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Off topic, the fact that we feature article about fictional characters is important in telling us something about this project - but what, I am still not sure myself :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I don't think it reads well, but the out of universe stuff is good. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very good article. If that floats your boat, your sorted.Whataboutbob 22:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a sensational article for a fictional character. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 04:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - superb article. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all the above. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think I'm supposed to add that I've contributed significantly to the article. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Way too much detail about specific plot points, and the plot summary itself is too in-universe (see WP:WAF). A short plot summary is one thing, but half the article is a plot summary. --Phirazo 17:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments. It is true that the plot summary of this article is a bit longer than usual, but we discussed this at the talkpage of WP:FICTION, and the consensus seemed to be that it was alright to have a substantial plot summary, provided that it was kept in proportion to the rest of the article. In the case of Pauline Fowler, a major character with significant cultural impact over a course of 22 years, the length of the plot summary is definitely more than in other articles, but seems appropriate and to have consensus. The plot summary used to be much longer, but we've had several editors review the Pauline Fowler storyline section to condense it, and I think we've struck a good balance. If you disagree, I'd appreciate if you could identify specific sections which you feel could be further whittled down? Thanks, --Elonka 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The "Storylines" section is still framed as a biography of Pauline Fowler, a fictional person. The way the third paragraph of the lead was rewritten needs to be done for the whole "Storylines" section, or it needs to be jettisoned altogether. --Phirazo 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (as contributor) Gungadin 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Does not follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The first example is the third paragraph of the lead, which is purely in-universe. There is a tendancy to fall in and out of a in-universe perspective throughout the article. J.Winklethorpe talk 18:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments. I copyedited the lead to condense it down a bit, and make it more clear which part was plot summary and which was external commentary. I also modified/condensed a few other places in the article. If there are other specific sections which you think could do with trimming/editing, please let us know, thanks. --Elonka 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your courteous reply, Elonka. I note the change you have made in the lead, but I am afraid it still appears to fail the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I would draw your attention to the examples given (section 2.1), particularly the second example. The comment "Notice how the prose is careful to label the subject as fictional, only to proceed to describe the character as if he were real for the remainder of the paragraph" does unfortunately exactly apply to the 3rd para of the lead, even as amended. I believe that if you look at that example, you will see that the pattern of a single out-of-universe label, followed by in-universe for the remainder of the paragraph, is exactly what this MOS page cautions against. If you feel you can address this issue, I will be happy to give the article a fuller review in the next few days. A brief look at tonights edits suggests you're dealing with the problem, however. J.Winklethorpe talk 22:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Winklethorpe, I have had a go at rewriting the lead. Hopefully now it is in accordance with the manual of style. Please let me know what you think. Gungadin 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy the rewritten lead now satisfies WP:WAF. I'm now going to frustrate you with what I've quickly found is a typical effect of FACs—I'm going to criticise something you've done to satisfy an earlier FAC point. In the 3rd lead para "traits that consistently typified the character. She was most often portrayed as an opinionated, sombre, battle-axe—a family orientated character who often alienated her kin due to overbearing interference." I think you could change the second "character" (actually the third use in that para), as it stood out to me as a repetitive use. I think "woman" would be fine, for example, without returning in-universe - you've already used "portrayed" to establish an out-of-universe tone. I've struck the comment relating to this paragraph, and will strike the rest once I've had the oportunity to thoroughly read the article.
  • Thankyou, i have changed the word per your suggestionGungadin 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the refs brings up the following:
*Bill Treacher—Eastenders describes itself as "An unofficial tribute to British actor Bill Treacher" and appears not to cite any sources that would lead me to believe it meets WP:RS
  • I have included a new ref per your approval on my talk pageGungadin 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the new ref completely replaces the old, then remove the old ref.
  • If ref "Eastenders—Tim Teeman watching BBC One" is from TimesOnline, where's the link?
  • I have fixed the reference link Gungadin 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the muliple page numbers in certain refs are refering to different instances of the ref? Thats is, the first page no is for the first use of the ref, and so on? While I can't find a specific entry in the MOS, I'm pretty sure that creating separate refs for each entry with a different page number is the approved method; it will certainly reduce the difficulty in finding which page nos are refered to, and prevent possible corruption if some instances of a ref are deleted without the main ref being updated.
  • This has now been fixed. There are now separate refs for each page number. Gungadin 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • EastEnders—The Inside Story an isbn search gives the publisher as BBC Books, not BCA, who publish members-only reprints - I believe it would be better to reference the original edition, if you can confirm the page nos are the same. J.Winklethorpe talk 23:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed this to BBC Books. I have that version of the book and the page numbers are the same.Gungadin 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised not to see the actress's autobiography used as a reference. Does it lack any useful insights? J.Winklethorpe talk 23:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunatley none of the contributing editors have her autobiography at present, but thankyou for suggesting it as i'm sure it would contain some useful insights. Hopefully it can be used to extend the article in the future.Gungadin 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the main question is whether you feel it might contain any "major facts and details" that aren't in the article, that prevents it being comprehensive. As I'm unlikely to buy it to check, if the editors state they are content, I'm content. J.Winklethorpe talk 21:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that it contains anything we don't know about. I don't mean to sound pretentious, but between myself, Gungadin and AnemoneProjectors, we know pretty much all there is to know about EastEnders, so if there were any big revelations in her autobiography, we'd probably know about them. She has given press interviews that contain a lot of criticism for the show, which are mentioned within the article, so I guess any criticism she has was in those reports, and most behind-the-scenes stuff is in the books we do have access to, like Inside Story. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • “Over the years Pauline's character altered somewhat from her original outline….” Is there any information on why this happened? Editorial decisions, character development? Was there a long-term plan to make her a miserable battleaxe, or was it an incremental thing? You’ve got some good commentary later on about Richard’s resistance to later character changes. Also, you could lose “somewhat” without harming the sentence in any way.
    • I have included some information that hopefully explains why Pauline became a battleaxe. Please let me know what you think.Gungadin 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good commentary from reliable sources.
  • The Jacquetta May quote is a great bit of commentary, exactly the sort of thing I would expect to be getting from this article.
  • “The audience had witnessed Pauline and Arthur rowing many times, but they were generally seen as the most stable couple in the show” on the face of it, this is a contradictory statement. Presumably there’s an explanation/expansion you can add (it was good natured bickering, or something?)
    • I have altered the structure and wording. Gungadin 01:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Details on scriptwriters decision-making – again, a good piece of info.
  • Ref "Eastenders—Tim Teeman watching BBC One" is on TimesOnline, but was originally published in The Times. I think it would be better citing the original source, and including the url as a courtesy link. In the article itself, Teeman should be identified as critic for the Times, not TimesOnline
  • “As a final tribute to Pauline and Wendy Richard the BBC aired…” – this paragraph appears to focus on the actress, rather than the character.
    • The show was called Goodbye, Pauline, and was more about the character in an in-universe sense than the actor. :) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 07:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the show was more about the character, then great. Make the paragraph about the character, too, and it'll be good. Did the "character commentary and tributes from televison critics and EastEnders actors" contain any worthwhile insights? I think this would be a good place to sum up to overall opinion and impact of the character, and it sounds like that programme would be a good source. Personally, I'd move a lot of the stuff from "reception" to this point. J.Winklethorpe talk 07:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've included a quote from wendy richard from the programme.Gungadin 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Her husband, Arthur, has been made redundant in 1984 and at age 43, he has no prospects for steady employment, so Pauline's unexpected pregnancy comes at a very bad time.” A bit of a run-on sentence
    • Could you explain what you mean by "on the run"? I don't know what it means, sorry! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must have forgotten to reply to this, but I have fixed the run-on sentence already.Gungadin 11:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “her deviant son Mark” is “deviant” a bit strong – sounds like he’s got some sick hobby. His article uses “delinquent”
    • I changed this to delinquentGungadin 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of that sentence is a long run-on.
    • I have split the sentence.Gungadin 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “she cannot curtail his deviance” – there’s deviance again. It could just be me that thinks it’s a rather strong word, but a dictionary gives me “a state or condition markedly different from the norm”.
  • Reception section – I have several issues with this section, which are my POV, although I believe other reviewers may share them. I would have preferred to see material in this section integrated throughout “Character development and impact”. Both popularity and criticism are a matter of impact, and indeed may have influenced development. The essay Wikipedia:Criticism explains why separate criticism sections are often a bad idea.
  • I’m afraid I have to echo the comment above about the relative size of the Storylines section. Of the c5800 words in the main article (i.e. excluding refs etc), it takes up c2500, so approximately 43%. I’m not suggesting you lose all that wonderful detail you’ve built up (and I appreciate it is the result of a 22 year run), but I would urge you to consider the use of summary style. To be honest, I stopped considering the prose too closely in that section as it got very heavy going. J.Winklethorpe talk 23:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments, I feel that the use of a separate article for Pauline's storylines (as you suggested above (WP:SS)) would be a bad idea, as it would be solely an article of storylines, without any real world context (as that appears in othe sections of the Pauline article) and be deleted straight away. A lot of the storylines important to the character did not make as much of a cultural impact, and therefore can't really be written about in an out of universe style. Also, according to a current discussion on the WikiProject EastEnders talk page, it would be derivative work, and therefore a copyright violation. Therefore, I think it is best off where it is - and I'm sorry that it cannot be condensed any further, but 22 years' worth of action (over 4000 episodes) (I feel) merits a slightly longer storyline section than other fictional characters. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 07:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I hadn't considered that a split-off article would have those issues. Nevertheless, I still feel it's unbalancing the article. While I sympathise with your view that it cannot be condensed any further, I think it's fair to say that anything longer than a sentence can be condensed to some extent. For example, here's the super-condensed version of "Marriage to Arthur": "The marriage of matriarch Pauline to the emotionally weaker Arthur endured despite frequent arguments. It suffered serious strain when Arthur confessed to an affair, and was thrown out. Although they reconciled, Arthur was wrongfully imprisoned for embezzlement by Willy Roper, who went on to seduce Pauline. She uncovered his deception, and secured Arthur’s release, but he died shortly after." (Edit:probably not the best example, as the source is in a different section, but I was looking for something self-contained.) I'm in no way suggesting that this hasty summary should actually be used, but I think it demonstrates that summarising is always possible. WP:WAF has several examples of featured articles about characters that may serve as good comparisons. I'm happy to listen to further discussion - my mind isn't made up on the issue. J.Winklethorpe talk 08:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A slight technical hitch (my hard drive's died!) means I may be slow to respond. Apologies for any inconvenience. J.Winklethorpe talk 08:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do appreciate that some users have an issue with the storyline length. I think you have done a good job of condensing that paragraph above. It works when you are concentrating on one plot like that, but that would not be possible to do in the storyline section, because it is ordered chronologically. We could not summarise eleven years of one collective plot in a single paragraph as you have done, because of all the unconnected storylines that occurred in between. The entire section is written in present tense, which works when the plot is read in a chronological order, but will be confusing for readers if we suddenly refer to 1996 in present tense, and then jump back to 1985 to describe another storyline in present tense. This issue was discussed at length before we submitted it for FA. We submitted it for a Peer Review, and brought the specific issue up at WP:FICTION and the storyline length was not considered to be an issue.Gungadin 01:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I think I'm going to do is try to summarise where I'm at on this issue, and leave it there. If it passes FA, then I was clearly wrong :)
          • I refered to WP:WAF having good examples of FAs on characters, such as Padmé Amidala, Palpatine, and Captain America. They all looked like top class articles to me, and the community agreed. What is notable is that none of them resorts to such a high proportion of in-universe plot description, with no supporting commentary within it. Captain America avoids it altogether, and the Star Wars profiles do a good job of keeping it focused and integrated. I appreciate that Pauline Fowler is somewhat different from a comic book or film character, but I think some broad conclusions of the best way to approach a fictional character can be drawn, the main one of which is that such a high proportion of plot summary prevents an article representing "our very best work". I think that the section needs radically reducing, or, even better, having its' material integrated into section 2, with supporting commentary to bring it up to the standard you've achieved in that section.
          • I think there is some really good stuff in this article - sections 1 and 2 are good, and there is some good material in 4. I appreciate that what I'm calling for would be, in effect, a total overhaul of the article, but the fact that the problem is difficult to solve can't affect my review of the article under the featured article criteria. So my oppose rests on this point, and more weakly on my dislike of the reception section. I would imagine your best course of action at this point is to wait and see how other reviewers respond, and ultimately how Raul weighs my oppose. J.Winklethorpe talk 12:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winklethorpe, have all your issues been addressed now or are there still outstanding issues you'd like to bring back to our attention, just so that they can be fixed (and hopefully your oppose can be withdrawn!) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the slow response, I have computer issues :(
  • I'm afraid my oppose still stands, based on my last 2 points. The first, on the Reception section, is a weak point, and I would not oppose on it alone (i.e if it was all that was left, I would likely move to a neutral position). The 2nd, on the Storylines section, is my main point, and the reason for my oppose. The rationale behind it is (hopefully) explained in my post above (12:01, 15 June 2007). J.Winklethorpe talk 11:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Phirazo. Dalejenkins 15:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support fantastic article for a fictional character. Informative, well written, well referenced, satifies all criteria. Good work.Lemmington 19:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the article is very good, but 14 unfree images are way too many. I understand the necessity to use unfree images in this case, and I would support the use of a small group of carefully chosen images with strong and specific rationales. I don't support the overuse of images with very weak/generic rationales that do not even begin to explain their individual necessity to the article. You need to demonstrate that the images serve more than a decorative purpose and that they are essential to the topic, and use no more than absolutely necessary. Rossrs 10:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. I have reduced the number of images to 8 and i've also been more specific with the rationales. Please let me know what you think.Gungadin 20:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you've done a great job (in reducing the images to only the most relevant) and I'm withdrawing my oppose. Thanks. Rossrs 22:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to clarify, does that mean you now support this? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, at least not yet, but now that the images have been fixed, I will go back over the article in more detail. Rossrs 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oppose - I have to echo the comments of User:Winklethorpe - Reading through section 2 about the character development, I felt that I gained a good, clear general idea of how the character evolved and there were some excellent examples given within the context of storylines, as well as pertinent quotes. The "storylines" section looks very much like a too-detailed rehash. To be honest, I felt frustrated after reading through the development section, and thinking how well it had been presented, to find that Pauline was 14 again, and that I was presented with her entire life history. At this point, I did lose interest. This is an usually good article for a fictional character, but somewhat spoiled for me by the repetition and excessive detail of the storyline section. If biographies of real people, historical figures etc, are to be written in a short, sharp style, I believe the same rationale should be applied to a fictional character. Rossrs 12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have spent several days tagging television character articles that are poorly referenced and poorly written, so this article was a breath of fresh air to read. Deserves to be promoted and held as an example to the many others in desperate need of improvement. On a side note i'm interested to know why "family" needs to be put in the character infobox, the text as well as having its own section? Seems unnecessary.Legalbeaver 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. Here are examples from the top that indicate the need for thorough copy-editing, preferably by fresh eyes.
    • "second longest-running"—remove awkward hyphen, I think.
    • "the show's" x 3. Even one would be awkward.
    • Punctuation needs an audit throughout, e.g., "Her storylines focused on drudgery, money worries and family troubles, which were all confronted with steely determination and stoicism; traits that consistently typified the character." Semicolon --> em dash. A few more commas for ease of reading, too?Passive is vague here: "all of which she confronted ...". Steely determination and stoicism? I guess they're a tiny bit different. Remove "consistently" as redundant.
    • All of those hyphens, and then one is omitted where needed: "family orientated".
    • "frequently featured"—Fowler would call this a "jingle".
Nice pun! Epbr123 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Dot Branning, and their scenes together"—"and" is awkward as glue here, because the two ideas are not close enough. Tony 09:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't understand your comment about the use of the phrase "frequently featured" - could you please explain this, as from what I can see, it looks like you're picking faults with coincidential alliteration. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tony's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 19:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is the purpose of the "family members" section? It holds no real world information, it isn't encyclopedic? Not seeing how that would interest anyone other than someone watching the show, and who would most like already know that information anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a list, because not everyone will know who she's related to. I've found them very useful personally in the past, and so have others. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the day, opinions differ. I find it essential to understand the character as it states who the people she is related to are. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more than a "difference of opinion", because this article wants to be part of what should be considered the "elite" of Wikipedia (grain of salt). Explain how I am to understand the character based on that weak geniology list (which is fictional by the way, the person isn't real)? I don't know those characters at all. I don't know how they impacted this character. That list doesn't explain that. It says "sister (deceased)". First, labeling births and deaths is kind of bad already, because they are not real. That section is treating this character and her fictional relatives as if they were real. They are not. Nor do they lend to the understanding of the character. That's like having a "list of favorite colors" section. How does that better my understanding of the character? It doesn't. Neither does this family list. It's fannish. No random reader is going to know anything about those characters, unless they are familiar with the show itself already. Knowing the father of this character does nothing for my understanding, and articles should not be written for just the "fans of the show". If someone who does not watch the show reads this article, and they don't understand what something means, that is the fault of the articles, and it obviously should be not featured if it lacks comprehensiveness. You already have a template at the bottom, with a link to all the characters, there is no reason to have a list that does the same thing except adds more in universe information, with no real world context whatsoever.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have to question the necessity of a lot of the plot. With "Heartache", why do we need to know about every detail of Arthur's predicament? Seeing as the article is about her, it seems that those details could easily be summed up in "Arthur cheated on her, they went through a rough spot, and *minor details of the rest*" in a much less space than it currently takes up. That's just one example. Even if it is a long running series, there really are a lot of things that can be condensed and cut. TTN 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per similar thoughts to Legalbeaver. I would state more on this topic, but at this moment, that is the best way that I can sum up my agreement that this article is awesome. Flyer22 21:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Just because it's better than the other articles doesn't mean it satifies FA criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC) (been moved up to direct association with initial comment  BIGNOLE  (Contact me))[reply]

  • Oppose - the storylines section reads like a rehashing of the plots of the episodes, only with more detail directed at the character. It could summarized a little more concisely. It takes up a third of the entire page, and it's written as if it actually happened (which is stated at Wikipedia: Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#The problem with in-universe perspective). One thing that should not happen on fictional pages is that fictional characters should not have fictional biographies written about them. That stuff should be trimmed an integrated with the "Character development and impact" information to help provide it with a real world context. Sorry, I don't follow the shows, so this indepth coverage of her fictional life, as if it actually happened, means absolutely nothing to me because I don't follow the show. I shouldn't have to follow the show to be able to understand what happens to her in it. I mean, you have one section that talks about the major points of her fictional life, but it's done in a manner that has an OOU tone, and is accompanied with outside sources that discuss the events. Then you have a new section which basically says the same thing, except in an in-universe tone, with no real world information whatsoever. The lead is 5 paragraphs long. Not even Superman's lead is that broken up, and that's a fictional character with almost 70 years of history to account for. The paragraphs need to be concise. Also, they seem out of place with each other. You talk about the character in the news in the second paragraph, then not again until the last paragraph. You have things in the lead that aren't anywhere in the body of the article. I haven't even read this thing word for word yet, but there's a problem when you can skim and article and find so many problems. What about this sentence, The character was killed off in a shocking and dramatic storyline...? Shocking? Shocking to who? To audiences, or the reporter publishing the ratings? Wasn't the reporter, that word doesn't show up there. It reads like it's supposed to be a teaser for that episode. Someone should go through the article and look for more peacock terms. The article is very well deserving of its GA status, but it's not FA (currently) in my opinion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Trampikey, do you want me to give a more detailed reason as to why I support this article, is that what you were stating above in response to my Support vote? I didn't do anything too differently than some other editors have done in this featured article nomination debate by stating either Support per...or Oppose per... As stated above by me, I didn't state anything too detailed in my support vote because my thoughts were similar to another editor's and it seemed too redundant to repeat. Given, that doesn't mean that should be a reason not to respond in a more detailed way, but I didn't feel that it was needed by me to repeat. Flyer22 09:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not at all, there's a gap between our comments because originally Bignole replied to your comment "Just because it's better than the other articles doesn't mean it satifies FA criteria.", to which I replied "It was a reiteration of the user's support, not a rationale.", then he moved it up to underneath Legalbeaber's support comment, so now it looks like I was criticising your comment, when in fact I was defending it! Bignole should have left the comment there but struck out. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well referenced article. I'm a little uncomfortable with the list in the family section. Perhaps those with copyediting skills who have commented above might like to improve this article themselves. The JPStalk to me 11:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for clarifying, Trampikey. I had suspected that you weren't replying to me. I should have checked the editing history of this page first to be sure on that matter before replying to you on that assumed concern. Flyer22 18:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These fixes needed.
  • "the Fowler/Beale family around which the soap was originally structured." - I think this misleads readers into thinking the soap was originally just about the Fowler/Beale family, which is clearly false. The Watts family arguably had a bigger role than either of those two.
    • I'm sorry, but your assumption is not true. The Watts became popular, but the show was originally structured around the Beales/Fowlers as mentioned by the show creators.Gungadin 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then. Epbr123 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is clear that her family is her life" - what is clear? Sentences shouldn't start with "it" when the "it" doesn't stand for anything
    • That is taken from a quote, perhaps you missed the quotation marks?Gungadin 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. Epbr123 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..from the beginning of the programme, with Pauline depicted as the matriarchal force.." - the "with" is ungrammatical. It's best to use a semicolon instead, ie. "..from the beginning of the programme; Pauline was depicted as the matriarchal force.."
  • "..that held the Fowler family together, while Arthur was depicted as weak..." - "while" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time
  • "30.15m watched the 1986 Christmas episode in which Pauline discovered.." - comma needed before "in which"
  • "has also been praised, with Teeman commenting" - ungrammatical "with"
  • "In July 1989 Pauline begins to go through some poor health" - the "some" is redundant
  • "signing the fund money into various different accounts" - the "different" is redundant
  • "In order to keep Martin within her grasp" - the "in order" is redundant, "within" should be replaced by "in"
  • "at loggerheads for a long while, with Pauline adamant that..." - ungrammatical "with"
  • "a spoof version of EastEnders, with black comedians taking" - ungrammatical "with"
  • "Although Joe is obviously drawn to Pauline" - the "obviously" is redundant
  • "and frequently clutches her head in obvious pain" - the "obvious" is redundant
  • "who frequented a pub called Rub-a-Dub" - "pub" is a slang term
  • "I thought in my heart of hearts it was wrong. [35]" - remove the space before the citation
  • I don't think "gay", "lesbian", "cremated", "cornerstone", "seduction" and "symbolised" need wikilinking. Epbr123 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says it's ungrammatical? I think the article reads well. Yo've nitpicked a hell of a lot of tiny errors that you could've just fixed yourself. In response to your fourth point, they did happen at the same time. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see this article has passionate editors. See here regarding "with" and "while". Epbr123 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose More comments - Character developement and impact can easily be merged with "Storylines" (with the latter merging into the former) As I said earlier. It's the same information, one just has real world material attached to it. Exit? Marriage to Arthur? Other Storylines? These are topics covered in "Storylines". Merge them, and get rid of the extraneous details about the fictional life. Per WP:WAF, you shouldn't treat fictional characters as if they are real, that includes writing up sections as if they were a fictional biography. Relevant information is better suited in the "Character development" section, everything else can be viewed by watching the show. (struck, as this just reiterates what I said in my initial oppose) The same goes for the infobox. Per WAF, in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. First appearance, last appearance, great (though the title of the episode, if EastEnders has titles, would probably be beneficial). DOB. Not great. She isn't real. She wasn't really born on that date. Knowing when she was born does not let me know anything essential about her. The same with "Deceased". This is purely fan information. She isn't really dead, because she isn't real, she's fictional. And in the great world of Soaps, no one is ever truly dead (in the fictional world in general). The fact that her occupation is never mentioned again in the article says to me that it isn't essential to understanding the character. The same goes for the listing of the family. I have no idea how these people being listed here give me some greater understanding of the character, considering they are not real either. I don't know them. They are not some cultural icon that I can easily identify and go "oh wow, so that's who her son is..." That brings me to the "Family" section. Entirely in-universe, list form at that, provides no essential knowledge of the character. Not only that, but the family tree is already in the template at the bottom of the page. Now I come to the lead paragraphs. They're so sporadic. First you talk about the characters first appearance, then jump to popular culture (which is the last thing talked about in the article itself), then you go into characterization, then fictional life, and lastly back to popular culture. Move all the pop culture stuff to the last paragraph, and put it together. This:The character's final appearance was a death scene, dying in the middle of the Albert Square gardens on Christmas Day, December 25, 2006, from what was later revealed to be a blow to the head. The episode was watched by an estimated 10.7 million viewers--could easily be shortened to "The character's final appearance on the show was watched by an estimated 10.7 million viewers". The details of it being her death and how she died is not important to the lead. The important part is that it is her final appearance, and it was watched by 10 million people (though, it would be nice if you could get an average viewership number to compare it to..I mean, if 10 million is the average viewers for the show, then it really isn't that significant). Also, "arch-enemy"? How comic book of us. That word is not used anywhere else in the article, and neither is Den Watts' potential for being "the worst enemy" of Pauline. That's a characterization that needs a citation. Speculating as to the nature of whether a character is the worst enemy of another character is original research, unless a source can verify that he was either written or considered the worst enemy of Pauline. Otherwise, the sentence needs to be rewritten to reflect what can be verified.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've already opposed once. What's the point in opposing twice? Your new criticisms should be added underneath your last ones. You don't get two votes. You are also coming accross as extremely patronising. There is no need for comments like this " Also, "arch-enemy"? How comic book of us".Gungadin 16:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, I didn't realize I had already put "oppose", I thought I had merely said "comment" for all of them. I struck the second "oppose". As for the comic book remark, it was sarcasm, I just thought it was a funny word. The questioned use of it is clear in the rest of what I said.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I realise you were being sarcastic. Some of your points are valid, but you are only serving to demotivate editors by being condescending. This is not a particularly productive approach in my opinion.Gungadin 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really condescending since I wasn't like "how could you use such a term, it's childish!" I didn't downplay the use of it, I thought it was a funny term, my point is that it isn't used anywhere else, or in the least the character is never described as such in the rest of the article when his name pops up. You see him mentioned with feuds that occur, but nothing that refers to him as the worst enemy of Pauline. This is why I said "us" instead of "you", which would have been pointing the finger at the editors of the article and saying "you silly minded fools". I think it's a funny word, but I'll strike it if it bothers you. I have no problem with it's use, if one can verify the necessity for it. The same goes for any synonym of it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, I realise that the lead is not your main concern, but I have attempted to fix it per your suggestions. I have condensed it and removed superfluous information. Please let me know what you think.Gungadin 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks much better. This sentence: Pauline Fowler (née Beale) was a fictional character in the BBC soap opera EastEnders, played continuously by actress Wendy Richard[1] from the show's first episode on February 19, 1985 and appearing in 1958 episodes during her twenty-two years sint on the show.--probably needs to be broken. I would stop after you identify who portrays the character. Then pick up with, "The character has appeared in 1,958 episode in twenty-two years, beginning with the series pilot." Do they identify thousands with a comma in the UK? I couldn't figure out why it says "1958", instead of "1,958". The same goes for "programme"? Is that the UK spelling? (if you cannot tell I live in the States, so I'm not up on every variation between the UK and USA). What is "née Beale"? It doesn't show up anywhere else. Is it a nickname? Probably needs a citation. I added a comma to the lead, but I was looking and the part that says, "Throughout her time..." could probably be removed, since "Pauline frequently.." basically says the same thing. That, or remove "frequently"..doesn't really matter which I don't think. As for the rest, I would include a brief summary of the character's popularity (and criticism) since there are sections for it, and also a brief summary of her appearances outside of the series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for looking over it again. I've tried to include everything per your suggestions. nee Beale isn't a nickname, it's the character's maiden name (nee means born). I'm guessing you will say that it shouldnt be in the article as she isnt real and wasn't really born :) Former names seem to be included in every soap opera character article, it's been like that long before I began editing here. I guess because the characters frequently change their names and may be known more widely by other names. Perhaps nee should be changed to "formerly or previously Pauline Beale", but that would need to be addressed at the WP:SO to get a consensus for a universal change on all soap pages. I've removed that information on the number of episodes, because it wasn't sourced. In the UK we say programme as opposed to program. Program is used here to refer to computing programs etc.Gungadin 21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It looks better. If it's her "born" name, then it needs a citation for when it was used. I'm your casual readers, as I have no clue about this series, so everything in it needs to be able to make sense to me. Does "nee" have a page, or is it on Wikitionary? You could link the word "nee" to Wikitionary if it's there and then cite the "Beale" maiden name. As for "program", I was just making sure it wasn't a typo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pauline_Fowler/archive1&oldid=1088822270"