Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive2
Pauline Fowler[edit]
This article about the 22-year-run of a character in the UK's EastEnders series is already at Good Article status, has been through one Peer Review in May 2007, and had a run at Featured Article in June 2007. After a month's worth of debate, the nom failed, primarily because of too much plot-related information. The article since then has gone through an extensive rewrite, and we'd like to take another run at FA. If successful, this will be the first time that an article about a soap opera character gets to FA status, so this article will be held up as an example for future such articles.
We'd appreciate any further comments from the community, as to whether this article needs any other improvement, or whether we're ready to take another run at FA. Thanks, Elonka 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Great article and I think you are almost ready for FAC. I wasn't sure not sure about this sentence from the marriage section and had to re-read it a couple of times:
"The storyline continued throughout 1993 as Christine was shown to make greater demands on Arthur, threatening to tell Pauline about their affair unless he did." I think it should say "did so himself" so there is no ambiguity. It might just be me being slow though! I'm only halfway through so I'll let you know if I come across anything else.--Opark 77 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am suitably impressed. The article is improved beyond measure. I suspect it might get some prose criticisms from those who write better than I do, so it might be worth taking the time to get a copy edit prior to returning to FA. I have a couple of comments for improvement. There's a lot of use of em-dashes in the prose. Em-dashes are a stronger form of punctuation than a comma — more of an interruption than a pause — and so I think it's worth reviewing if they've been overused here and there, breaking the flow of the prose a little too much. My other point would be to look at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure about the use of criticism sections. I think "Reception" would be perfectly readable with the two sub-sections merged. J.Winklethorpe talk 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. "Popularity" and "Criticism" kind of go hand-n-hand. Also, back to that family list at the bottom. It's an unnecessary list, since there are people in the infobox (which I assume are the immediate family...don't know, don't watch the show) and a box at the bottom of the page, which is in plain sight of the family list, that lists everyone again. Since the "Beale/Fowler" link is in the box, people can click that to see a family tree and learn what relation all those people are. "Cultural impact" should probably be titled "In popular culture". "Impact" suggests that she influenced something, when, as I read that section, it just appears that she was referenced in those situations. An example of "cultural impact" (this is hypothetical, as I don't have sources to back it up) would be discussing Sigourny Weaver's impact on the female protagonist genre, with her character Ellen Ripley from the Alien movies. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- There's some duplication in the infoboxes, sure, but I don't actually mind the infoboxes at the bottom. Building the web, and all that. Would changing the family list in the top info box to The Beale/Fowler family be more appropriate? It would save having to decide which family members to include, and so on. (I'm thinking more as a precedent for other articles here) J.Winklethorpe talk 12:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The family list itself is undue weight, because no one knows what the importance of that is. You have a section called "Importance of family," which makes me think any important family members are already listed there, and everyone else is irrelevant. Again, there's a big box at the bottom the lists all these people already. Building the web means connecting relevant topics (through wiki-linking in sections), but not providing a list of every associated topic, no matter how small in relevance. What the article has is a "See also" section masquerading as a "Family List"; a "See also" section that is already listed just below itself in another box. My suggestion would be ditch both the lists, and do what you suggested, and that's put the "Beale/Fowler" link in the top infobox. This way, you can view the family when you start the article, and if you missed it, you can view it by the time you get to the end (as they are all listed in the box at the bottom of the page). To put a different spin on it, the "Family" list at the bottom is about as necessary as putting a list of all the "Batman" films on every single one of the Batman film pages. There's already a box at the bottom of the page that lists all the Batman films, and any important films (ones that had an impact on the article in question) would be mentioned in one of the other sections anyway. It's just a list, it doesn't establish what its importance is to the character. The only people that know of the importance to the character, for any of those family members, are probably fans of the show, which means to the casual reader it means nothing other than a list of family members (which repeats itself in a box just below the list). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'd completely missed the "family" section; I thought you were talking info-boxes only. My bad. In which case, I quite agree - there's no need for that family section and the infoboxes. Realistically, everyone of relevance will already have been mentioned in the article, and the info-box links will help anyone who wants to see the full line-up. Anyway, let's wait and see what the editors of the article say. J.Winklethorpe talk 14:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The family list itself is undue weight, because no one knows what the importance of that is. You have a section called "Importance of family," which makes me think any important family members are already listed there, and everyone else is irrelevant. Again, there's a big box at the bottom the lists all these people already. Building the web means connecting relevant topics (through wiki-linking in sections), but not providing a list of every associated topic, no matter how small in relevance. What the article has is a "See also" section masquerading as a "Family List"; a "See also" section that is already listed just below itself in another box. My suggestion would be ditch both the lists, and do what you suggested, and that's put the "Beale/Fowler" link in the top infobox. This way, you can view the family when you start the article, and if you missed it, you can view it by the time you get to the end (as they are all listed in the box at the bottom of the page). To put a different spin on it, the "Family" list at the bottom is about as necessary as putting a list of all the "Batman" films on every single one of the Batman film pages. There's already a box at the bottom of the page that lists all the Batman films, and any important films (ones that had an impact on the article in question) would be mentioned in one of the other sections anyway. It's just a list, it doesn't establish what its importance is to the character. The only people that know of the importance to the character, for any of those family members, are probably fans of the show, which means to the casual reader it means nothing other than a list of family members (which repeats itself in a box just below the list). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- There's some duplication in the infoboxes, sure, but I don't actually mind the infoboxes at the bottom. Building the web, and all that. Would changing the family list in the top info box to The Beale/Fowler family be more appropriate? It would save having to decide which family members to include, and so on. (I'm thinking more as a precedent for other articles here) J.Winklethorpe talk 12:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. "Popularity" and "Criticism" kind of go hand-n-hand. Also, back to that family list at the bottom. It's an unnecessary list, since there are people in the infobox (which I assume are the immediate family...don't know, don't watch the show) and a box at the bottom of the page, which is in plain sight of the family list, that lists everyone again. Since the "Beale/Fowler" link is in the box, people can click that to see a family tree and learn what relation all those people are. "Cultural impact" should probably be titled "In popular culture". "Impact" suggests that she influenced something, when, as I read that section, it just appears that she was referenced in those situations. An example of "cultural impact" (this is hypothetical, as I don't have sources to back it up) would be discussing Sigourny Weaver's impact on the female protagonist genre, with her character Ellen Ripley from the Alien movies. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I made a request for it to be copyedited at the league of copyeditors a week or so ago, i'm sure it will take a while to get done though (if ever). As far as merging the "Reception", I dont have a problem with that if this is the preferred method. Do you mean just remove the headings? or do you want the text juggled around too? so that it alternates between crit and praise throughout, instead of just all praise and all crit?
I dont have a problem with removing the family section, but I suspect that others might. A while ago I suggested recreating an individual template box specifically for Pauline, that would recreate all the information in the family list i.e. explain how she is realted etc. This would go on autohide like the templates at the bottom. But I have no experience in making templates, so I dont know if this is possible to do. It might be too complicated to include that much information.
What about if we include this image in the article under the section titled family tree? That way the list would be removed, but the information will still be there for those who want it. I think that would look good actually.Gungadin♦ 14:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The image basically serves the exact same purpose as the list, only in image form. Generally, family members are not listed unless they have some how impacted the character in question, for example Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker, or Lionel Luthor and Lex Luthor. The pertinant (sp) ones should be mentioned, and I think they are in the "Importance of Family" section. Everyone else is just duplications of the box that is just below them. I think the link to the actual family tree article is sufficient. If someone wants to know the details of a topic not entirely related to the character specifically, they can click that link and be taken to an article that covers the whole family and how they are all connected. Who her cousin was isn't going to help you understand her, unless you know how that cousin affected her life (the same goes for her husband, which is why there is a section about her marriage to Arthur). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to try and defend the family section because I agree that its purpose (linking to related characters) became redundant after the templates were introduced, but many others disagree. Basically, I dont have a strong opinion either way, so if you want to go ahead and remove it then I wont be objecting or reverting. I will leave a note on the project talk page to see if anyone other than me wants to add an opinion on this.Gungadin♦ 18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- On the reception section, I would suggest trying to merge the text in so it reads as a cohesive whole. Trying to make it roughly chronological would probably work. For example, the starting paragraph from each section will probably go together quite nicely, then comments about the character during her run, then comments about her leaving. Really, just try to present it so that NPOV is maintained, and opposing viewpoints are presented fairly. On the family tree, I actually think that the templates are better than the family tree section — they link the articles up nicely. J.Winklethorpe talk 09:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll let other people voice their opinions. At the moment, and please correct me if I misinterpreted the opinion, it appears that at least three of us agree that the "Family" section, which just lists family members, is redundant to the templates that are already in place and probably also to the section "Importance of family" that details the important family members. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)