Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pauline Fowler

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 promoted 00:48, 7 December 2007.

---

Pauline Fowler

previous FAC, June 2007

This article underwent an FA nom a few months ago. It was a close thing, but the nom finally failed, primarily because of concerns about the quantity of plot-related information. Since then the article has gone through an extensive rewrite to address concerns, and I think it's ready to consider again.  :)

The subject is a longrunning character on the British soap opera EastEnders, who left the show after a 22-year run. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas we've been working hard to try and get a handle on the quantity of soap-related information that's flowing in to Wikipedia, and 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 it's the first ever soap character article to reach Good status, and if this nomination succeeds, it will be the first to reach Featured status. Looking forward to comments, Elonka 19:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Q: Why is the article written in the present tense, when it's made clear that the character's been killed off? --Dweller 19:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Good question, and we actually debated this quite a bit. The general rules on Wikipedia are that fictional subjects should be written about in present tense. We could probably switch to past tense easily enough (it's a controversial topic), but we're trying to stick with Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:WAF and WP:TENSE. --Elonka 19:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the answer. The opening line is however misleading, as it makes it seem that Pauline is a character today. Perhaps the Lead could be reworked to avoid confusion? --Dweller 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Worse, para 2 is in past tense, so you have a mixed bag of tenses. --Dweller 20:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Any better now? Gungadin♦ 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry it's taken me so long to come back here and thanks for the nudge. Just took a very brief look. Parag 1 begins "Pauline... is" and parag 2 begins "Pauline was". Perhaps in the intervening month this been corrected and then "uncorrected"? ;-) If this can be sorted, I'll do a "proper" review with pleasure and drop it at the bottom of this FAC. --Dweller 10:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I've changed the lead so that the tenses are consistent within it. There are still a few other places in the article where it's more appropriate to use present tense (such as in the image captions), but I think it reads better now, please take a look? --Elonka 12:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
            • I changed it back. Per the MOS, fiction is timeless and she isn't real, so you write about her in present tense. Saying she "was a fictional character" means that she no longer is. Unless she jumped the 4th dimensional wall and came into reality, she will always be a fictional character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
              • • You need to sort this out, and I suggest you use the article talk page. The first parag alone is a tense mess. --Dweller 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
                  • I believe this is fixed now. We've discussed it extensively at Talk:Pauline Fowler#Tense and appear to have a consensus. If there are any remaining concerns, please let us know. --Elonka 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - You need to mention the creators in the lead, and you could probably put the second and third paragraphs together. I would change "praise and criticism" to "positive and negative criticism" as "criticism" doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. I don't understand what ""Wicked Witch of Walford" means. Is it a negation of being a television icon? If not, then you need to change "but also" to "and", as "but also" insinuates a competing view. You can be an icon and be reviled.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

 DoneGungadin♦ 23:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You added exact quotes, so they need sources. I won't be able to review the article in its entirety for a few days, I have several school projects I have due for the next week.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

 DoneNo worries, if this is anything like the last FAC then it will be open for a long time :) Gungadin♦ 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "she has been described as.... a "sucking chest wound", with "not a single redeeming feature"" are pretty scathing criticisms. They are verifiable as is, however in my opinion you should make the sources clearer. e.g. described by Guardian columnist Lucy Mangan as.... etc.
    • I dont think it's necessary to include that in the lead, because it's just a snippet of a quote that is taken from the Reception section. The reporter and the newspaper is mentioned there, where the quote is much bigger and readers only have to follow the ref number to get reference details. Gungadin♦ 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      •  Done Since that "chest wound" comment was from a blog, I went ahead and removed it and replaced it with info about how Pauline made the "most annoying people" list. --Elonka 20:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The blockquote about "Pauline's original character outline": Quotations within the quote should not be italicised, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation_marks.
    •  Done I changed this, although the source text italicises the quotes within quotes. Does this make a difference?Gungadin♦ 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overlinking. I suggest only linking relevant items, e.g. flu, whodunnit, linchpin, wikitionary link to cornerstone, wikitionary link to battle-axe, symbolised, matriarchal, amniocentesis, launderette and gossiping are all oblique links, not relevant in the way character links etc. are. Also some repeated links, e.g. brain haemorrhage, The Times - not an exhaustive list.
    • Ive removed some of these links, but some are terms that readers may not be familiar with, or they may not get the context.I believe that those links should remain.Gungadin♦ 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying this is definitely a problem - but "the serial" used to describe the show, just have a look and see if it is overused.
    •  Done I went through and did a bit of copyediting to reduce overuse of certain synonyms. --Elonka 05:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "The HIV storyline came to an end on-screen in 2003, when the actor Todd Carty was written out of the serial after 13 years playing Mark. In the serial, Mark discovered that his HIV medication was failing and he decided to leave Walford to spend the remainder of his life traveling—refusing to let Pauline witness his deterioration." -- That could all be much tighter.
    •  DoneGungadin♦ 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • added that it was a "delight" to "alight" on an episode that was "so satisfying."[59] is incredibly piecemeal. "it was a delight to finally alight on an episode...that was so satisfying." would be much better.
    •  DoneGungadin♦ 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "A promotional picture of Pauline and Joe was used on the official Torchwood website, in a fictional magazine article about aliens.[95]" -- Notable?
    •  Done I removed this, you're right it wasnt notable.Gungadin♦ 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "continued through 2007" -- American English?Mark83 10:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    •  DoneGungadin♦ 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't had the opportunity to properly review, but I will note that my main reason for opposing on the previous FAC, the preponderance of in-universe plot exposition, has been fixed, and the article is all the better for it. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 23:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This article is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable and neutral. Passes WP:WAF and WP:FICT. So there. ^anemone|_projectors 22:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Pass & support
  • On the basis that it meets current criteria to a sufficient degree.
  • Request: "stoicism—traits that consistently typified the character. She was most often portrayed as an opinionated, sombre, battle-axe—a family-oriented woman who often alienated her kin due" Too many hyphens in dense proximity. Please repair. Learnedo 07:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Fixed. :) --Elonka 05:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment lead
  • Was it decided that she can never be viewed again on that show? If it has re-runs, then it means you really should write in present tense. Only if there is no possible way to view her again would you really write in past tense. You'd still have all that same info in the first sentence, you'd just change the tense. And the surrounding tenses.
    • I dont agree with this. It confuses readers when we write as if she is a present character (See the first reviewers comment above).Gungadin♦ 16:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • To you it may confuse readers, but literary practice is that if it's fiction then it's present tense. The reason it is present tense is that when you view a rerun, she'll be doing whatever she's doing in the present time. I think it's outlined in WP:WAF, in the "Contextual presentation" section.
        • I see no need to confuse readers based on tense. WP:WAF is not policy but a guideline, which states "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." If writing the lead in present tense is confusing people, then it's common sense to write the lead in past tense for this article.Gungadin♦ 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, but being a guideline doesn't mean we should ignore it. It's confusing to me that the page treats the character like she is real. Saying "Pauline was played by Richards" makes me think that she is no longer played by Richards. This is confusing, because if I watch the show, she appears to still be played by Richards. No one replaced her, she's still there. The character may no longer be on the show, but when episodes air with that character, she is still played by the same person. The same goes for all her actions in the show. They still happen. Part of FAC is that you need to meet the guidelines, and writing in present tense has generally always been followed. I cannot think of a time when it was not done simply because "it may confuse people". It may confuse them if the character is treated real, when they aren't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
            • But this isnt just my opinion, people have complained that writing in present for a past character is misleading, hence the reviewers comment above. I dont understand why you think we are treating the character as if she is real because we say "was" not "is played by Wendy Richard". Also your stance on tense seems to go against what you have said on the matter in the past. You said here on Pauline's talk page, "It should all be written in past tense, not present tense. It happened, it isn't on going". We have discussed this at length anyway, and we sought the opinions of experienced fiction editors. We were told that past tense was used when writing about out of universe information, and present should be used for in universe plot summary. Saying an actress played a character is OOU information, it's highlighting that an actor played the role of a fictional character. Therefore we can use past over present. I cant see how anyone could think we were treating Pauline as if she is real by saying that Wendy Richard played her and that she no longer plays her. Are you suggesting that the entire thing is written in present? Gungadin♦ 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• In the past I was under the impression that it was "past", but I was incorrect. It isn't misleading to write in present tense, because it's a show and is viewable at any present time someone wishes to view it. That's the point behind present tense, is that being fiction, it will always be present tense when you are reading or watching it. Saying the character "did" something in the past is misleading, because it's attributing the idea that her actions were real because they have a past. They have a present, her actions are always in the present when reading or viewing them. If you wrote a plot summary for a film, you wouldn't write it in past tense simply because the film had already been released.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • But we havent got pure plot summary in this article. Any plot detail is mixed in with real world information and commentary. When we did have a "storylines" section of in-universe information, it was written in present tense. It no longer has that so present tense is not needed. Or are you suggesting that we word commentary in present tense too?Gungadin♦ 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • To me, it seems like you changed the tense of the article based on the fact that an editor was unfamiliar with the guidelines that state it should be in present tense. Technically, Richards is Pauline today, because if I go watch a segment that she was in, she will be Pauline in that segment. Fiction doesn't have a lifespan. It's always present. You have the consensus of the editors at WP:WAF and WP:TENSE that state it should be in present tense. It gives an example of when you relate something in past tense, and that is when you are speaking about in a real world sense. The examples are at TENSE.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok I dont agree with this at all, but im just going to do it so we can move on. You just want the lead chaged? I dont have to comb over the whole article?Gungadin♦ 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
        • All places where it applies. WP:TENSE provides an example of what it is appropriate to use past tense over present tense when writing on a fictional topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes it says "discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well", therefore the only thing that needs to be changed is She is played by Wendy Richard, everything else is discussion so can be in past.Gungadin♦ 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
            • The lead is now written in a similar way to how you edited it in my sandbox [1] This prior edit of the lead is what it was like before I changed it for the above reviewer Gungadin♦ 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You can remove "continuously", when you do that, as it is unnecessary for the sentence.
    •  DoneGungadin♦ 16:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove "also" from--"Her narrative also include.."--it isn't necessary.
    •  DoneGungadin♦ 16:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't believe you would use a semi-colon with "...and Den Watts; a family friend...". The reason being is that the semi-colon turns the second part into its own sentence, and it's a sentence fragment on its own. I'd check the rest of the article for instances of that. I see another one in "Background" with the twins, and one all the way down in the first sentence of "Lineage". There are probably others. Rule of thumb, if you can read what comes after the semi-colon, and it is a complete sentence, then the colon was the right choice. If it is dependent on the previous sentence, then you need a comma. Then again, I don't know British rules, so maybe you do it opposite come to think of it. *scratches head* If not, please fix. If so, just say so and ignore this comment.
• Comment character creation
  • This--"Holland had drawn on his own London background for inspiration, naming some of the characters after his cousins, the fraternal twins Pete and Pauline and their mother Lou; a family set-up recreated on-screen as the first family of EastEnders, the Beales and Fowlers."-- doesn't make sense. He named some characters after his cousins, but is it saying that Pete, Pauline and Lou are named after his cousins? I think it needs to be reworded for better understanding. It reads like characters were named after his cousins, some fraternal twins and their mother.
    • I think Pete and Pauline were the names of his cousins, and Lou was Pete and Pauline's mother, but it needs clarifying. ^anemone|_projectors 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    •  DoneGungadin♦ 16:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "In fact," -- remove. That statement is its own fact.
    •  Done ^anemone|_projectors 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Use of colons over commas. Again, I'm not up on British grammer, but you should use a comma over a colon when you are quoting. For example, many places will state-- "Richard stated: '...'" -- It should be "Richard stated, '...'" instead. I also saw some "Richard has explained:..." The "has" is unnecessary. If British rule doesn't say to use colons over commas, then I'd switch those. The colon generally breaks up the flow.
    •  Done ^anemone|_projectors 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • " Richard has said “Having my hair cut was the most traumatic aspect of joining EastEnders. I'd worn it long for 19 years. I was hysterical when I came out of the hairdresser's. Then someone said I looked like Judith Chalmers!”[10]" -- should be a comma after "said".
    •  Done ^anemone|_projectors 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Going to take a break now. If British rule contradicts those grammar issues I pointed out, just say so. If it doesn't, then the article may need a third-party copyeditor to come in--preferably one who knows British rules, since they could inadvertantly change things that shouldn't be changed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I have a styleguide issued by the BPS for publishing psychology studies in journals, so i'll give you the gist of what it says. There is no set rule apparently i.e you dont have to use a comma or colon just because you are quoting, you can use either, or neither (depending on the sentence). You should use punctuation where necessary for independent reasons, not merely because you're quoting. So commas are used if there is a pause in the sentence, and colons are used to introduce an explanation of what comes before the colon. I'm interpreting this to mean that colons should be used to introduce a quote following a sentence, and commas when there is just a break in the sentence? As far as copyediting goes, we've had no luck getting anyone to do it for us. Any idea on who we can ask? Maybe you can have a go for us.Gungadin♦ 16:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
        • • Most psychological journals I've read for class use a comma after. You would only use "nothing" when you were quoting a partial statement. For instance, if I was quoting you and I said: To me the "styleguide issued by the BPS for..."-- In this instance, I'm taking your words and making them mine, but giving credit to you by quoting you (and sourcing obviously). As far as c/eing goes, I can only pick up on what I catch, and I'm certainly not the best at it. I tend to get c/e'd a lot because I get wordy when I write. As I go further through the article, I'll make note of anything that seems off to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
            • From what ive been reading, you base the use of punctuation on sentence requirements and it's just coincidence that punctuation follows a quotation. For instance you would use nothing if you were to say, The queen declared "I want cake". You use a colon if you are introducing an independent sentence or an explanation of the sentence that came before it i.e. Rufus explains the the historical development in cinematic genre: " historical and cultural influences blah blah blah!.... A comma would be used to indicate an interruption i.e According to Delia Smith, "fish is nicer than meat, but only when you catch it yourself". Therefore the commas or colons have nothing to do with the presence of quotation marks, they are being used because the sentence needs punctuation, just like a regular sentence does.Gungadin♦ 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Those exampels are my point. You are using the "According to.." in the article. Notice that the one using a colon is a complete sentence before it gets to the colon, whereas in the article it shows up with incomplete statements. You wouldn't write a sentence like "John explained." You could say "Rufus explain....:" because you've basically already described what he's going to explain, and the quotation is an elaboration on that explaination. Whereas saying "Rufus stated:..." -- we don't know what he stated prior to the quotation. Hence the comma would be used because you are going to say what he said, instead of elaborate on what you've already paraphrased.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, i'm aware of this, hence my explanation and examples above yours. I wasnt trying to defend anything in the article. I just read up on this today, im not trying to say I knew this all along. I realise there will be errors in the article as it is. Up until now you were suggesting that there was some kind of rule regarding commas and quotes. You said "you should use a comma over a colon when you are quoting." I'm merely saying that there is no such rule, colons are acceptable in some cases, and i explained why. I was just clarifying this for both of us, not trying to outdo you or show off my great knowledge of punctuation, lolGungadin♦ 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't say there was an actual rule. What I said was that the article incorrectly uses colons, as your own example shows how to appropriately use a colon in place of a comma. I don't believe the article actually uses any sentence structure that resemblence that in which the colon is being used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • No, but you did state "you should use a comma over a colon when you are quoting". You did not mention that there are exceptions to the use of a comma, which is why I pointed it out, and I can see exceptions in the article.Gungadin♦ 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I didn't/don't see any exceptions, that's why I said it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
          • well exceptions in my opinion include... John Yorke, has commented on the importance of the lineage between the two characters: "[Pauline] endures, stoically and heroically, whatever life may throw at hertoo..."and this....The inherent affiliation between Pauline and her family has been discussed by one journalist: "As the first episodes aired and the storylines unfolded, Pauline was there to bolster the family unit, and it was clear that she would be an important part of Albert Square..." and there are a few others. In these instances, the quotes are not surrounded by a dependent clause, so a comma isnt necessary and a colon would be more appropriate IMO. But what I will do is go through it all, and change those that I feel need changing, then you can scrutinize/change them afterwards. Gungadin♦ 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• I haven't made it that far down the page, but there shouldn't be a comma after "John Yorke", but I would agree on the colon use in that sentence. As for the second, i would say no comma or colon would be used. You'd simply state: The inherent affiliation between Pauline and her family has been discussed by one journalist "as the first episodes aired and the storylines unfolded...".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done Fixed 'em all.  :) At least, I think I did. If I missed any, feel free to point them out, and I'll pounce on 'em.  :) --Elonka 05:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support (as nominator). I believe all concerns raised on this page have been addressed. If I've missed any, could someone please point them out? Thanks, Elonka 01:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Read this on the first nom, and was impressed. Read it again last weekend; still impressed. I never liked Pauline, but this is a fine article. Ceoil 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Object pending resolution of tense issues discussed above. --Dweller 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I did an extensive copyedit, as notated on the talkpage and discussed below here at the nom. Please take another look?  :) --Elonka 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This still doesn't make sense to me--"naming some of the characters after his family, his fraternal twin cousins, Pete and Pauline, and their mother Lou"--Is he naming the show's fraternal twin cousins Pete and Pauline, after his own fraternal twin cousins? Is he naming them after some random family members, or are Pete and Pauline not cousins, but are named after his cousins? The same goes for Lou.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • He named all three characters (Pete, Pauline, Lou) after his own biological family members, yes. Do you feel that another wording would be more clear? --Elonka 07:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It needs to be clear who's who and where the names are coming from. If you don't know where "Pete","Pauline", "Lou" come from, then simply say he named Pete, Pauline, and Lou after his own family members. The way it is worded now, you cannot tell if if Pete and Pauline were his own cousins, and thus he named the two in the show the same thing because of their "blood ties", if if you were simply stating they were cousins in the show. "Some" is a weasel word anyway, and should not be used. List who they are, or say the exact number if it is too many to list. To clarify the naming: Are Pete and Pauline both names of Holland's own cousins, as well as the names of cousins on the show? Is Lou the name of Holland's aunt-the cousins mother? I cannot tell if he simply took specific family members names and gave them to random characters, or if those characters who received those names reflect the exact same roles that Holland's own family members were in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      •  Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gungadin (talk • contribs) 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment 2 - Book sources need more than just title and page number. It would be best if the first instance of book sources have the Cite book template filled out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Which one? To my knowledge, all books are fully cited in the "References" section. --Elonka 07:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Notes should be "References", and those first instances that you cited each of those books should be where you fully put in the citation. There's no reason to have an extended section that lists the books in full citation when you can save space and just put it in the article where they are first used--then use the same format you already use for the subsequent usage of the books.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, with all due respect, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this, since I've done quite a lot of work on citations in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's guidelines on referencing are clear that there is not a consensus on the one "best" way to cite articles, but that there are multiple acceptable methods and hybrid versions. The most important thing about sourcing is simply that there be sufficient information provided, such that an outside reviewer can find the information to verify it. I've worked on several complex articles on Wikipedia which use this same "hybrid" or "short footnote" format. It's especially useful on long articles with multiple citations. I've found that a main advantage to this, is that when working on multiple articles, it makes it easier to copy/paste the references section en masse, rather than having to painstakingly track down the exact book citation from one of the embedded references. Don't get me wrong, the "reference the entire book in the first ref" is a valid method too, but it can cause problems when the one paragraph with the book citation gets moved or deleted, and then all of a sudden there will be dozens of other citations on the same article that aren't fully cited anymore. It's cumbersome to then have to manually check, "Okay, which one is the "first" cite again?" and re-copy the entire book citation, when there's really no need for that, since the information is already at the bottom of the article! --Elonka 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I never claimed you couldn't do it that way (though I see where it is implied through my wording), just that the second section is redundant, when, if you just put them in the first instances of the article you remove an extraneous section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
          • True, either method is acceptable. We just chose to do it in the "short footnote" hybrid method. In terms of the FA nom though, do you feel that your concerns have been suitably addressed, or is there anything else still outstanding? --Elonka 00:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I came across the previous FAC for Mrs Fowler and I was suitably impressed. Having read it again I find it even more impressive. Superb. Legalbeaver 03:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - Because of everything else I have to work on--Wiki related and real life projects--I don't have time to complete my review. I did notice that there are still tense issues. Basically, if there is anything that talks about her actions from the basis that they actually occurred--i.e. She literally did something in the show, or in one of the books about her--then it needs to be present tense. Someone needs to comb over the entire article. Also, references should go at the end of the sentence, or at the end of a punctuation like a comma or semi-colon. There are several that come in the middle of a sentence. It's ok if you are quoting two different sources in a sentence, just put the references in the correct order at the end. There are elipses (the "...") that are spaced out and some that are tight together in the same quotes. These need to be uniform. There needs to be some serious copy editing to this article to pick up the minor nitpicky things like that. The article is very good, it's just these minor things that add up in the long run.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding tense issues, I agree that this is complex, and we unfortunately seem to have a situation where some FA reviewers want it one way, and others want it a different way. I personally think that the article strikes a good balance at the moment, though if there are specific concerns, feel free to bring them up.
  • Regarding references: According to WP:CITE, it is perfectly acceptable for a footnote to appear in the middle of a sentence. Indeed, the example right at WP:CITE does exactly that.
  • Regarding ellipses, I agree that these were inconsistent. I went ahead and fixed things to all use the same format. Thanks, --Elonka 16:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It says:Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence, while others are referenced at the end. Frequently, a reference tag will coincide with punctuation and many editors put the reference tags after punctuation (except dashes), as is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS).[3] Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature which place references before punctuation. Each article should be internally consistent. -- There isn't consistency. There's some before punctuation and some after punctuation. That means, either the ones mid-sentence need to be brought to the end of the punctuation, or the ones at the end of the punctuation need to be placed before it. The example they provide is the journal Nature. Notice how the references are all before the period.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, different example at WP:CITE.  :) I was referring to the one at WP:CITE#Short footnote citations with full references, which shows that references can appear in mid-sentence. To my knowledge all of the references in Pauline Fowler occur after punctuation, except for something such as an endash. If there are any that appear before punctuation, please let me know the numbers, and I'll go in and fix. --Elonka 17:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I think we have our "mid-sentence" definitions crossed. When I said "mid-sentence" I wasn't meaning after commas, which would be "mid-sentence". A more proper term would be "mid-thought", as in there are some references that appear like this: "...blah blah blah blah blah blah." A quick scan only shows #67 to be "mid thought". I get the idea behind placing it there, because there is a direct quote, but there isn't a pause in place that the reference can sit behind. But, from looking at the paragraph, I cannot tell if the source is only for the quote, or for all the sentences that preceed it as well. The rest appear fine--I wasn't aware of the endash rule so the one I saw there is fine--but I'm in a rush to get to work so I could have missed something (don't think so, but you never know).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Correct, #67 is intended as a source for the "new lease on life" quote. That's in accordance with the top of WP:CITE which says that direct quotes require citations. --Elonka 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, but it doesn't say put the citation directly beside the quoted information. It's usually placed after a pause. Given the fact that the info before #67 is an independent clause, I don't see why you couldn't place a semi-colon after the quoted part, then remove the "and" and you have two independent clauses separated by a semi-colon.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. :) I also went through and tweaked a lot of little tense issues. I hope you like it better now.  :) --Elonka 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Support - I was just combing through all your copyediting, and it looks much better from what I could see. I cannot vouch for being the best at grammar and general copyediting needs, but from what I saw it suits my needs well enough. Thanks for going through and correcting the tense issues where needed, I saw places where you kept a past tense and when reading the sentence I think it's clear that past tense would have been the appropriate tense (what immediately comes to mind was when it talks about the Richards playing the role from the 80s to 2006...or whatever the specific year was. In that instance you were speaking about Richards, and it should have been past tense). I think you guys/gals have done a great job with this article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Hooray! Thank you for all your time and detailed comments, they have helped produce a stronger article.  :) --Elonka 23:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry to chime in at the last minute, but hey, this is a serious encyclopedia. While this article is finally OK in the prose department, I do find serious problems in the referencing. For example:
  • Ref 66: the author needs to be specified in your reference.
  • Ref 67: this is SO trashy. How on earth can it be used in a serious article? I think these links to the gutter press are just unconscionable. Please remove them.

But now I see that it goes on and on, this list of trashy, journalistic, in-your-face linked pages. This is unacceptable as verification of what should be a reliable, factual account. The use of these references underlies, I think, the rather trivial nature of the article content.

I think it needs to be re-thought—vastly slashed back in size to a factual, non-POV, properly verifiable account. Tony (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is based on POV about tabloids. You havent even bothered to look at how the sources are being used. Some are being used to show that details in storylines happened, some are being used to give the article a real world perspective, some are being used for critical commentary, and some are being used for quotes from the actress based on interviews she gave. This is an article on a fictional character, and the sources are reporting on soap opera plots that happened. Can you prove they are inaccurate? I see no rule stating that tabloids can't be used as sources for fictional characters. Gungadin♦ 14:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Tony that we should avoid the use of tabloids as sources. I was going to reply, but wanted to get my fixes in first. Basically though: Tabloids tend to report in a sensationalistic manner, and are not always reliable. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, and we should avoid some of the more "colorful" language that appears in tabloids, because our goal is to be a serious and neutral encyclopedia. See also WP:RS. I'll post more once the fixes are in, so that Tony can take another look.  :) --Elonka 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal of anymore material, enough has been removed already. The remaining tabloid sources are not being used for "sensationalism" or their "colorful language", they are mostly being used as third party sources so that readers can verify that the storyline happened the way we said it did. Primary episode guide links can be used in their place from the official site if necessary, but content should not be removed (it will just be used as an excuse for censorship by some).Gungadin♦ 18:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that occasional use of tabloids is acceptable as long as it's done in a judicious manner. The impact of the Pauline Fowler character on British culture was substantial, and it's useful to include a couple references to major tabloids such as The Sun (one of the most read English newspapers in the world) and Daily Mirror to indicate this impact. An occasional tabloid reference may also be appropriate as a source for a quote. I'll give a try at balancing things (and also checking for more high-quality references), and then we can take another look, how's that?  :) --Elonka 18:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• (Outdent): Yes, it's a matter of balance. At the moment, there is a sea of tabloids in the reference list. I'd like to see that reduced to a minimum. The problem with tabloids is their reliability. They're chief agenda is to sell copy, and they lie, distort, exaggerate, stretch the truth to do that when there's an opportunity. Tony (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright, we've gone through and thinned out many of the tabloid references, removing some, and upgrading others to more reliable sources. I do still think that some of the tabloid sources are worth keeping, such as where there's a statement like, "The British press labeled him 'Wicked Willy'" or for some viewership numbers (which to my knowledge the British tabloids report in an accurate manner). I've also added several other very reliable sources, such as New York Times and a couple others to show that the character was known internationally. Could you please take another look? --Elonka 08:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Meets criteria and has sufficient reliable sources, despite our own cultural prejudices. Like it or not, tabloids meet RS requirements. That the NYT, for example, is more reliable than The Sun is an unfounded sweeping assumption that, in real life, could be very dangerous. Tony's comments about tabloids can be extended to most newspapers. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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.