Talk:Bianca Jackson/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Beloved  Freak  16:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * No problems here.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No problems here
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * I imagine would be a problem at times since she is still a regular character, but no recent problems.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Having read through the article, I'd say it's very close to GA but there are a few issues to be addressed. I'll go through the article by GA criterion and by section, noting any issues I have found. {{collapse|1=

Lead

 * fictional character and soap opera don't need to be linked (see WP:OVERLINK for more on linking) ✅
 * It would be nice to know who Diederick Santer is, perhaps simply by prefacing his name with "producer" ✅
 * "Bianca has been featured in numerous high profile storylines" - "numerous" is not necessary here ✅ (also removed "high profile" as it seems inherently POV)
 * "...revelation of her adoptive daughter Whitney Dean...", could you give Whitney's age here, or state that she was a minor, to make it clear that Tony's subsequent arrest is in relation to her ✅

Background

 * Is there any need to have "historic" in quotes? ✅ (kept the quotes, but rephrased to make clear that it is a quote)

Casting

 * "Palmer's casting has been described as an "accident"..." - who has described it as that? ✅
 * "Anna Scher theatre school" - this doesn't quite match the name of the place, which is Anna Scher Theatre ✅

Personality

 * "The way the character was portrayed, as a "person who wouldn't take nonsense from anyone", has led James Rampton..." - tenses are mixed here. I would suggest either The way the character is portrayed [...] has led James Rampton..., The way the character has been portrayed [...] has led James Rampton... or The way the character was portrayed [...] led James Rampton... ✅
 * "..."girl power", a cultural phenomenon of the mid-late 1990s, which is also linked to third-wave feminism." - is the link of girl power to third wave feminism attributed to Rampton? Otherwise, I'd suggest it's a little dubious. I know that this is mentioned in the article for girl power, but the link to feminism has been disputed with many people saying "gorl powers"'s got nothing to do with feminism. It could be explored at the girl power article, but I think to keep it neutral and free from OR, you would need to go into too much detail here, that's not really relevant to Bianca. So, if it's not part of the Rampton quote, I'd lose the mention of third wave feminism. ✅ (The link isn't made by Rampton, and even just going through the article fixing the refs, without yet having read your section-specific commentary, this particular link struck me as rather extraneous, so removed.)
 * "However, it has also been noted,..." - this is a bit vague. Noted by whom? ✅ (Changed to: "However, Rampton also noted")

Character development

 * "Bianca was featured in various high profile storylines [...] which included numerous... " - again, "various" and "numerous" are vague and redundant. Instead, try something like In her first six years in the soap, Bianca's storylines included affairs, feuds, bereavements, family problems, abortion, and a problematic marriage to Ricky Butcher. Although, perhaps "family problems" is a bit vague, too. ✅ (Re-worded per your suggestion, with the omission of "family problems", as they generally fall under 'affairs', 'feuds' etc anyway.)

"Rickaaaaaaay!"

 * "It has been suggested that Bianca's catchphrase..." - another vague unsupported attribution - see WP:WEASEL for more info on this. ✅ (Changed to: "Rampton has suggested that Bianca's catchphrase...")
 * In this sentence, you have spaced emdashes. According to MOS:EMDASH, emdashes should not be spaced. This happens several times through the article, I'll try to mention them all, but please check to make sure you get them all. ✅ (Used CTRL+F to ensure emdashes were unspaced throughout the whole article)
 * "...Ricky supported Bianca through a personal crisis — the revelation ..." - spaced emdash needs fixing ✅
 * ""A couple like Ricky and Bianca... can have constantly sniped at each other for several episodes" - here, and elsewhere throughout the article, there are ellipses that aren't clear whether they are present in the source text, or marking omissions. If you are making the omissions, please mark them with square brackets like: "A couple like Ricky and Bianca [...] can have constantly sniped at each other for several episodes". This happens several times, so they all need to be fixed. ✅
 * "...in April 1997 22 million viewers tuned in to see them marry on-screen..." - I don't think you need to say "on-screen"; that's kind of obvious from the fact that you're talking about the characters, not the actors. ✅
 * "one of the biggest soap audiences ever." - do we know if that is just in the UK, or internationally?
 * It's not made clear in the source article, which states: "Bianca's marriage to Ricky Butcher last year drew one of the biggest soap audiences ever with an audience of more than 22 million." Frickative  20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if perhaps it should be as a quote then, what do you think? I'm worried that its; a bit ambiguous as a straight statement.
 * I think you're right - for clarity's sake I've reworded as: "The BBC has reported that Bianca and Ricky's on-off romance "captivated millions of fans", and in April 1997 attracted "one of the biggest soap audiences ever", with 22 million viewers tuning in to see them marry". Frickative  01:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Daily Mail branded Ricky and Bianca "EastEnders' most popular couple" - can we have a date for that? Could be relevant since they are still current, and presumably will not necessarily be the most popular couple for ever. ✅ (Prefaced: "In 2008, the Daily Mail branded...")
 * "...and they have also been described as "iconic"." - who has described them as that?
 * A blog called The New Pink that I've never encountered before, and that doesn't really seem to be a reliable source. I'll have a scout about and see if I can find anything better. Frickative  20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed this half-sentence entirely. The source isn't used for any editorial commentary any more, and its single use is now just to show the Ricky/Bianca return trailer. Frickative  01:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "The characters were shown to reconcile later in the year" - you haven't said that they broke up, which would be nice for clarity. Also, I don't think you need "were shown to"; it's an in-universe sentence, so it's fine to say "the characters reconciled".

Spina bifida

 * "After falling pregnant with Ricky's baby..." - "falling pregnant" is a colloquialism, so shouldn't be used here. A good proportion of readers won't know the expression, and it also sounds informal. (It's used several times in this article, so needs to be checked.) ✅ (Changed to just 'becoming pregnant', though I couldn't find it used anywhere else in the article - perhaps changed in earlier revisions without my noticing.)
 * There was a "fell pregnant" but I've changed it.-- Beloved Freak  14:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Bianca agonised about whether to have an abortion" → Bianca agonised about whether or not to have an abortion ✅
 * "...but eventually decided to terminate her pregnancy at 20 weeks, following the diagnosis." - is "following the diagnosis" necessary here? Obviously it would have been some time after the diagnosis, but presumably it was diagnosis, then agonising over decision, then abortion. This sentence implies agonising over decision, then diagnosis, then abortion. ✅ (You're quite right, removed.)
 * Link abortion (if you think it's necessary) at the first mention rather than the following sentence ✅
 * "As a result, Palmer was nominated ..." - "as a result" is not necessary ✅
 * "...Palmer was nominated ..." - we have another spaced emdash in this sentence. ✅
 * "Natasha was mentioned in episode in 2009..." - I'm not sure that this is hugely relevant to the story, seems a bit trivial here. What do you think? ✅ (Definitely trivial and not really relevant to the focus of the section, so removed.)
 * "...a storyline about spina bifida and hydrocephalus, a developmental birth defect resulting in an incompletely formed spinal cord..." - that's two defects presumably, and the description only applies to spina bifida, not hydrocephalus.

Exit: 1999

 * "...causing an STD scare..." - could you link STD to sexually transmitted disease, and preferably spell it out, since some readers won't know the phrase, only knowing VD (in other countries), or in the case of some younger people, STI. ✅
 * "However, in November 1998..." - "however" is not really necessary here. ✅
 * "Martine McCutcheon and Ross Kemp (Grant and Tiffany Mitchell)" - you need to switch either the character names or the actor names so that it doesn't look like Grant is played by McCutcheon and Tiffany by Kemp. ✅ (Changed to just 'McCutcheon and Kemp' as both they and their characters were already mentioned earlier in the paragraph)
 * "Bianca left the serial on a train for Manchester..." Bianca didn't leave EastEnders, Palmer did. Since the rest of the sentence is in-universe, try Bianca left Walford or Bianca left Albert Square ✅

Spin-off: 2002

 * "...the BBC announced that Patsy Palmer and Sid Owen were reprising their roles as Bianca and Ricky..." → ...the BBC announced that Patsy Palmer and Sid Owen would reprise their roles as Bianca and Ricky... ✅

Return: 2008

 * "However, it was announced on 29 October 2007..." - I'm not sure you should be starting the section with "however". What about something like Despite Palmer's earlier reservations, it was announced on 29 October 2007 that she would be... ✅
 * "...despite previously saying she would never return to the show as it was "rubbish"" - rather than being at the end of this sentence, I think it would look better if you either start off this section with her 2005 comments, or even mention them at the end of the previous one, since they follow on from her earlier comments. ✅ (Moved to end of last section)
 * "...it was announced that Sid Owen was also be returning to the show..." - something's gone a bit wrong with that sentence. ✅ (Changed to "would also be returning...")
 * you don't need to link public house ✅
 * Righteous Brothers should be The Righteous Brothers ✅
 * "The promo uses the tag line..." - "promo" is an abbreviation, please use the whole word ✅
 * Could do with a brief explanation of Cathy Come Home, in square brackets, maybe something like "Perhaps the storyline is meant to be an updated version of [1966 BBC drama] Cathy Come Home – yet if so...

Relationship with Tony King; paedophilia

 * "had been struck by a woman and child at a bus stop with nowhere to go..." → had been struck by a scene of a woman and child at a bus stop with nowhere to go or had been struck by an image of a woman and child at a bus stop with nowhere to go ✅
 * "he seemed to have few friends or family..."" - you don't need this ellipsis at the end, just put the end quote marks and put a full stop outside the quotes. ✅
 * "However, paedophilia as a storyline had been pitched before..." - is there a rough date for this previous pitch?
 * No, the source article just says: "The issue had, in fact, come up before, and been scuppered by just such questions. "We knew," Santer says, "that something like 16% of under-16s have been sexually abused at some point, but if you can't find a story, it's an issue that sits there, dead, on the show." Given the difficulty of the subject, it was not a risk they were then willing to take." Frickative  17:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fine. Might be an interesting point to follow up on if the article's developed further.-- Beloved Freak  20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "The storyline has been dubbed as..." - dubbed by whom?
 * It's not really clear. The Daily Mail source says: "Viewers have hit out at what has been dubbed the most controversial story-line on the show ever". I've reworded the sentence as: "According to the Daily Mail, the storyline has been dubbed as the "most controversial story-line on the show ever". Does that work? Frickative  17:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep

Reunion with Ricky Butcher

 * "In November 2009 it was announced that coinciding with the return of her on-screen family and the 25th anniversary of EastEnders, Bianca and Ricky remarried in February 2010." - the tense at the beginning of the sentence doesn't match the end, also it couldn't be announced in November that they remarried in February. ✅ (Changed to "Bianca and Ricky would remarry in February 2010")

1993–99

 * "...he dumps her..." - a bit informal ✅ (Changed to "he breaks up with her")
 * "She and David flirt with each other,..." - spaced emdashes in this sentence ✅
 * No need to link Christmas Day ✅
 * "helped by her enemy Grant Mitchell —" - spaced emdash ✅
 * "However, after finding an old photo of Bianca and Dan together..." - no need for this "however", and no need to link photo ✅
 * "In the Summer of 1999..." - summer doesn't need a capital letter, but it's actually better not to use seasons where possible bearing in mind that in the southern hemisphere, our summer is their winter, and many regions of the world don't have four seasons anyway. It's less confusing to use specific months, or if that's not possible, maybe, "towards the middle of 1999". ✅ (Changed to "in mid-1999...", though perhaps an editor more familiar with the storyline can be more specific)
 * "Bianca has a short relationship with Richard Cole in 1994..." - perhaps state upfront that he's an older man
 * When it says that Carol tells David the truth, could you make it clear that Bianca doesn't find out at this point.
 * "Natalie later sets it up..." - this whole sentence is a little awkward
 * "...a pre-natal scan confirms that the unborn child is affected with spina bifida." - don't they also find out that the baby had hydrocephalus?

2002–07

 * It looks a bit awkward with the image pushing the subheading out of the way - perhaps move the image to the right (the above one could be moved to the left if you wish to preserve symmetry.)
 * "Tony grooms 12-year old Whitney .." - "grooms" can be linked to child grooming ✅

2008—

 * "...his affair with Whitney, who is now too adult for him" - sounds a little awkward. Maybe something like ...his affair with Whitney, whom he is no longer attracted to. ✅
 * "Whitney confesses" - makes it sound like she's been doing something wrong - remember this is the underage victim of a paedophile. ✅ (Changed to: "Whitney tells a disbelieving Bianca of their relationship")
 * "Following a DNA test..." - consider linking to Parental testing ✅

Reception

 * "...people love a stroppy girl" - this is too informal to use unquoted. ✅
 * "Palmer claimed that members of the public..." - "claimed" makes it sound like she might be lying. "said" is fine. ✅
 * "I sometimes think I should go back [to EastEnders] for everyone else's sake." - Eastenders should be in italics here. ✅
 * "Conversely, when the character departed the serial ..." - "conversely" is not necessary ✅
 * "Palmer's portrayal of Bianca earned her a nomination..." - more spaced emdashes in this sentence ✅
 * "Other media sources branded them two of..." - the previous sentence mentions the show's producer, I don't think he counts as another media source, in the same group as critics. ✅ (Changed this bit to: "Reuters branded them two of "the most popular characters on the soap".", removing the "iconic couple" bit because I don't think The New Pink website is a particularly good source.)

In popular culture and other media

 * "The character was also spoofed..." - no need for "also"; the previous paragraph doesn't mention spoofs ✅
 * no need to link "black" ✅
 * "Notably, Jacob had previously appeared..." - no need to say "notably" - if it wasn't notable, you wouldn't be mentioning it! ✅

Casting

 * I don't think you need a citation for the fact that Patsy Palmer got the part, this is probably the most easily verifiable facts in the article. ✅
 * On the other hand, could do with a citation for the fact that she was 21 at the time. ✅

Return: 2008

 * "It was said that Bianca would return "as a single mother with a horde of children in tow"" - this has a citation, but the source does not say anything about this. the source is talking about her never returning to Eastenders. As a result, this whole paragraph is unsourced and desperately needs citing, especially as there are quotes. ✅
 * I think this was another mix up with references. There definitely did used to be a Digital Spy article covering all of this paragraph, but I can't for the life of me find it. I've substituted in a reference from the Daily Mirror which says much the same, and tweaked the wording accordingly. Frickative  23:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Exit: 1999

 * I'm not sure that this picture of Bianca, Carol and Dan can really be justified under fair use. It seems purely decorative to me. ✅

2002–07

 * Having mentioned moving the image of Ricky and Bianca, I'm not sure that this one qualifies under fair use either, as it doesn't seem particularly vital to the article. ✅

References/citation format in detail
I feel that all of the dates in the references would be better in Day-month-year style, it fits with the style used in the article, and is less confusing than yyyy--mm--dd (especially to non-US readers). This is a suggestion, but not a GA requirement. ✅
 * Basically, all the citations need to be filled out with all available info regarding publication dates, publishers, authors etc. I'll go through some of these giving suggestions, but they all need to be checked. ✅
 * Per WP:ALLCAPS, all titles in sources should be converted into "Start case" ✅
 * 1) ("Palmer making EastEnders comeback" - citation template is missing the "work" parameter, which should be BBC News. Type it like this: BBC News to counteract the italics that is applied to the "work" field. ✅
 * 2) ("Owen to join..") - formatting is inconsistent & would benefit from citation template. BBC news should have a capital "N" and should not be in italics. The publisher is BBC. Instead of "URL last accessed" it should say "Retrieved" for consistency (achieved by using the template). It needs a publication date. ✅
 * 3) (Colin Brake) - needs page numbers for each citation
 * 4) (Emma Bunton bio) - what is Yuddy.com and what makes it reliable? think you may need a better source for this. ✅ (Replaced with an article from the Liverpool Daily Post. It's behind a paywall at Highbeam, so I've included the pertinent extract using the 'quote' parameter.)
 * 5) - publisher is Guardian Media Group ✅
 * 6) (Hester Lacey interview) - this link is dead ✅
 * 7) ("EastEnders – Patsy Palmer not bothered...") link is dead ✅ (Removed this bit entirely, as the website has closed down and wasn't a particularly esteemed publication anyway)
 * 8) ("Fiesty Bianca") - Reuters should not be in italics. The second use of this reference (after the sentence "Other media sources branded them two of..." - doesn't seem to back up this sentence in any way. ✅ (The references here had been muddled up, and the second use should have been of the Reuters article on Sid Owen's return instead. Fixed now.)
 * 9) ("I'd give silly cow...") - needs author & publisher (Trinity Mirror); the work is Daily Mirror ✅ (I've changed all but one instance of The Mirror to Daily Mirror, but left one from 1997 when the masthead of the paper was The Mirror.)
 * 10) ("Is there life...") - publisher is Independent Print Limited ✅
 * 11) ("Getting Schticky...") - what's the deal with this? Who publishes it? It's fictional, does it have anything to do with the BBC? In short: is it reliable?
 * I've taken issue with the use of the Walford Gazette as a reliable source in the past, as I think it falls under WP:SPS. It's used three times in this article, so does anyone have a different stance on it? I'm happier using it for interviews with the cast than for editorial content, as it's used in the other two instances here, though. Frickative  20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1)  ("Ricky to rejoin Bianca..."), Reuters shouldn't be in italics, needs a publication date ✅
 * 2) ("Palmer admits..."), work is Daily Mirror, needs author, publication date & publisher ✅
 * 3) ("Will flour power...") - link is dead ✅ (It was showing as dead on checklinks but actually worked. The host site was dubious, though, so I've linked to a different version.)
 * 4) ("Hello and a sad goodbye") - link is dead ✅
 * 5) ("Bianca Butcher") - link is dead ✅
 * 6) ("Vote now") - this link has changed
 * This link seems to go to "news from albert square" which only mentions the 2010 Bubble Awards.
 * Sorry, marked this one as 'done' by accident. I actually marked it as a deadlink in the article, which I'll try and fix when the rest of the references are sorted. Frickative  17:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 2=issues dealt with}}

Lead

 * To comply with the manual of style, specifically WP:LEAD, the lead section needs to adequately summarise the rest of the article, which I don't feel that it does at the moment.

"Rickaaaaaaay!"

 * "Palmer explained that it was actually Ross, as a DJ, who had originally inspired the catchphrase" - can you expand on this at all? How did he initiate a catchphrase in a soap he has nothing to do with? My interest was piqued, so it'd be nice to follow through & explain how this happened

Spina bifida

 * "In scenes shown after the abortion, ..." - this sentence is a little unwieldy. "after the birth" isn't necessary; it wouldn't have been beforehand would it? Why was Ricky unable to do it? Was it the emotional stress of the situation? Please make that clear. Perhaps try Bianca and Ricky were given the opportunity to see and hold their dead daughter, who they named Natasha. Ricky [insert clearer bit here about him being unable to hold her] but Bianca later told him their baby had been perfect. ← of course, if she specifically said "my baby", then keep it as "her baby", but try something like that.
 * "the characters came to terms with what they had done" - doesn't sound 100% neutral; always tricky when writing about things like abortion on Wikipedia, but "what they had done" makes them sound culpable. Try and make it a bit more neutral like "the experience" or something. If there were specific issues of them / her feeling guilty, then you could mention that.
 * "Bianca's decision to abort reportedly angered a proportion of viewers," - "reportedly" - again, this is unsupported attribution. Who reported it? And, how many is "a proportion" of viewers? A majority? Minority?
 * "However, many were "moved" by the storyline," - again, do we have any idea of the numbers? It's inevitable that some will like the storyline, and some won't, so it would be interesting to know if it was received well or badly overall.

Reunion with Ricky Butcher

 * "It features Tiffany arranging a comeback for Bianca's family..." - is this little Tiffany? How was she arranging a comeback? By family, do you mean her mother & siblings?
 * This might not need changing by the way, might just be me being stupid. just wondered if it was the ghost of Tiffany Mitchell or something, not knowing anything about the spinoff DVD.-- Beloved Freak  20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture and other media

 * Was Carmel Jackson any relation to Bianca's family? Either way, might be worth clarifying✅

Reception

 * "The males regarded Bianca as a "saucy cow", with implications of unacceptable assertiveness in women." - is this attributable to Barker? If so, could we have a citation there, because otherwise it looks like original research✅

I'll put the article on hold for a week to allow editors to address the issues. It seems like a lot, but many of these issues are "cosmetic" WP:MOS-related and should be sorted quite easily. If these issues are addressed, I will need to look over it again. Please ask if you have any questions.-- Beloved Freak  13:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for such a thorough review! It's very helpful, and while there are quite a lot of fixes needed, I'm confident that we can have it up to scratch within a week. I've made a start on the changes, and noted off what's been done so far. If anyone from the EastEnders WikiProject has any comments on the reliability of The New Pink or Walford Gazette, please do share :) Frickative  20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you've fixed quite a few things already, I'll try and go through what you've done tomorrow, when I'm a bit more awake. Would you like me to go through the remainder of the references pointing out the specific issues, or do you think you can check them against the examples of the first 15 or so? I'm more than happy to do so if you wish. I'll also come up with a more specific suggestion for expanding the lead tomorrow, as I see I left that hanging a bit! :)-- Beloved Freak  20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the Walford Gazette source should be ok because it's an actual interview with the actor. Surely words from the actor's mouth are reliable wherever they are published? Walford Gazette isn't run by the BBC, but its owner recently brought out a book featuring several of his interviews. Anemone  Projectors  21:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks BelovedFreak! Fixing the refs and lead should be okay, I think the reason there's so many issues is that a lot of the article was put together years ago, before use of citation templates was so standard. Anemone - I do think the interview is okay (I often use interviews from the Holby Gazette for Holby articles) - I just didn't realise that the other two uses were also interviews. I thought they were regular editorial pieces, but they're not :) Frickative  22:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I suppose it's been an article that's been edited by many different users over time, which also causes problems. I think it's in pretty good shape though, and definitely in sight of GA. I'm happy with the Walford Gazette, unless anyone else has other concerns with it in the meantime.-- Beloved Freak  23:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to close this review now. Some really great work done by User:Frickative, but unfortunately there are still some issues outstanding. It's been on hold for nearly two weeks and not much is happening. The article's quite close to GA now so hopefully someone can deal with the last issues at some point and renominate.-- Beloved Freak  09:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)