Talk:EastEnders Live (2010 episode)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: weebiloobil (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm weebiloobil (talk), and I'll be reviewing this article. A preliminary check shows the article to be in good stead, although reference 33 appears to be broken. I'll be back soon to provide the full review, but until then, feel free to leave any comments either here or on my talk page. Good luck! - weebiloobil (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Review

Hello again! That was lovely and quick. There are some articles that are a nightmare to go through and review, but luckily this wasn't one of them, and I only have a few things to mention.

The article states that the cast and crew had 2 weeks of rehearsals, but it then states "Cast members had just three full rehearsal days in advance of the live episode, two dress rehearsals, and only one read-through of the entire episode". What were they doing the rest of the two weeks? It seems a bit confusing, so some clarification might be required.

From EastEnders Live#Broadcast: "On the day of broadcast, it was reported that..." Reported by whom? The reference says The Daily Mirror, so why not "On the day of broadcast, The Mirror reported that...".

From EastEnders Live#Origins: "Another aspect of the episode is the remarriage of characters Bianca Jackson (Patsy Palmer) and Ricky Butcher (Sid Owen). " As I recall from watching the episode, the marriage took place the day before, and only part of the reception was seen in the live episode.

The two pictures - much as I like using images, do we really need pictures of Barbara Windsor and Adam Woodyat to tell us that Windsor made an error and one of Woodyat's lines was criticised?

And there was this interesting thing. It fulfills the Good Article Criteria (specifically 1(a)), but the clause " It was feared producers may have to use the pre-recorded tape on the day of broadcast when Turner fell ill with the flu," from the lead contains some interesting grammatical points concerning the 'have'. What tense is it?

Anyway, I'm placing the article on hold whilst this points are addressed/discussed, although judging by the speed reference 33 was fixed, it shouldn't be too long. Good luck! - weebiloobil (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review!

After re-reading both sources, it's not at all clear what a "full" rehearsal day entails, so I've taken that bit out and left that they had had two weeks to rehearse but just two dress rehearsals.

I've changed it to "The Mirror reported that..."

I put the images in initially to break the text up for easier reading, but given that the structure has ended up with multiple section breaks, it's not exactly a wall of text, so I've taken them out again :)

Grammar has unfortunately never been my forte, so I'm not entirely clear on what the tense issue is with the 'have' - I've changed the sentence to: "When Turner fell ill with the flu on the day of broadcast, it was feared the producers may need to use the pre-recorded tape, but in the event she recovered enough to appear." - is that any better? Frickative 20:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, a grammar question. As it stands, the sentence (or more specifically, the clause) that is the problem, "may have to use", is the conditional progressive; ie, someone in the past ("it was feared) was worrying that they would have to broadcast the episode in our relative future, eg next week (they may need to). However, the episode was broadcast, so the question of whether to broadcast it live or show the tape has already been solved; the correct tense/mood/voice is the conditional perfect, "they may have needed to". As the meerkat says, simples.

Anyhoo, that has no bearing on the GA status, and seeing as you've done everything I've asked, I'm delighted to pass the article. Congratulations! - weebiloobil (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'd have just changed "have" to "have had". It's that strange tense where something's both future and past. anemoneprojectors talk 10:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]