Talk:Pauline Fowler/Archive 3

Next FA attempt
The questions of infobox formatting aside, I think we're ready to go ahead with another try at FA. Everyone alright on this? If so, I'll go ahead and file the paperwork. :) --Elonka 22:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me :) Gung  adin  ♦  14:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes please! &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (会話) 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Pauline Fowler. Fingers crossed!  :) --Elonka 19:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope this doesn't get forgotten about, nobody's commented for ages :( anemone  |  projectors  19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should start some "Support" comments? --Elonka 20:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten about Pauline, lol. Only one of the people commenting has been bothered to read past the lead, and the one that did read it entirely hasnt been back to follow up. Maybe some of us should show support to get the ball rolling. I dont think I will this time, it may look a bit suspect if I do because I have written so much of it :) Gung  adin  ♦  21:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, can we pull that comment about the "sucking chest wound" out of the lead? I realize that it's accurate, but it's awfully strong language, and tends to overpower the rest of the info. :/ --Elonka 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to, but if you think that's strong, then you should hear what my dad used to call her whenever she was on tv :) I dont really understand the issue with it, cos it's not as if Pauline is a real person capable of being offended by the comment. I put it in the lead as a contrasting negative comment to the positive ones. Somoene on the FAR was complaining that the negative comment I had there previously "wicked witch" wasnt necessarily negative (or something like that), so I went with a quote that could not be construed as anything but negative :) 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gungadin (talk • contribs)
 * I do think that "sucking chest wound" is too strong. It completely overpowers the rest of the information in the lead, and, frankly, I'm concerned that that wording is what is preventing more people from supporting the FA right now. I understand that the wording is sourced, but I think it's not a "representative" sample of criticism.  See also WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.  Please change it. --Elonka 18:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CENSOR. I dont suppose it is your inetntion Elonka, but you seem like you are ordering us to change it, and I dont appreciate that at all. As I said, if you dislike it so much, then feel free to change it yourself. I have no objection to you finding a more representative piece of criticism. Looking forward to it. Gung adin  ♦  19:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not ordering you to change it, just giving you the opportunity to fix it before I go in and muddle with it. If that's what you want though, okay. :) --Elonka 20:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (update) Changed. The "chest wound" comment was only sourced to a blog anyway, so I removed all references to that blog, and for the "negative" balance in the lead I included the part about Pauline making the "most annoying person" list. --Elonka 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely diasgaree. You should discuss its removal. It's a critics opinion from the Guardian, it's fine to stay in the body of the article. Why are you trying to censor criticism? You removed it from the lead, fine, but I see no need for it to be removed from the reception section. Gung adin  ♦  20:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's a little strong for the lead, but the body is the body. The body is supposed to be comprehensive.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)   —Preceding comment was added at 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, we can leave it in the body if that's what others want. I still wish we could find a stronger source than a blog though. It's too easy to cherry-pick random unreviewed comments (like the box where we're quoting a single viewer).  These kinds of things are called Primary Sources, and it's easy to misuse them to push a bias.  But as long as it's out of the lead, I can deal with it. --Elonka 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That isnt a typical blog from some random nobody. It's taken from "culture vulture" and is written by journalists/critics from The Guardian newspaper, a broadsheet not a tabloid. Culture Vulture often appears in print in the Guardian, ive read it myself. It appears on The Guardian's website, not myspace, and it represents the critic's opinion of Pauline. Why is this different from using any other crticic's comments on here? They all represent one person's opinion, who's to say how many agree or not, that's something we can never know and something we dont need to know to include it here.


 * I dont get what your problem is with the quote box. The quote box is there to represent a negative opinion of Pauline, just as the other box is there to represent a positive one. What do you mean by unreviewed comments? It was an opinion broadcast on National news, which you can verify by following the link and actually watching the report yourself on video. If the viewer's opinion is being reported on by an independent news channel, then how is it a primary source? I didnt just knock on my neighbours door and implant his comment in the article. BBC News featured various comments about public reaction to Pauline's departure, some were positive and some were negative. It seems to me like they weren't trying to bias their report by including both, and therefore neither does this article. There are positive comments and negative comments, because the character was liked and disliked. You dont seem to mind all the positive ones. Including only favourable opininions and deleting all the negative seems more like pushing a bias to me. Gung adin  ♦  19:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is so not what I'm about. :)  I'm not a fan of the show, and I have no interest in making Pauline Fowler look positive or negative, I just want to ensure that we end up with a balanced article.  The problem with quoting a single viewer, is that it's difficult to tell whether or not it's a "representative sample" of opinion.  The issue isn't one of censorship, it's one of undue weight. When we quote a well-known reviewer who's writing an actual article, as opposed to an offhand comment in a blog, we (usually) get a slightly higher quality type of comment.  Or to put it another way:  Our job here at Wikipedia isn't to provide a list of every good or bad comment that's shown up about Pauline in the tabloids, our goal is to provide an encyclopedic resource of what the character was about, and why the character was important to culture.  I'm not sure that we're serving our readers well by making a big deal about one viewer saying they would have "blown up" Pauline.  Especially because we're putting this quote in a big box on the side of the article.  How is this helpful to our readers?  The only big quotes that we should emphasize like that should be major quotes that really made the rounds of pop culture.  Was that "blown up" comment repeated over and over in other news sources?  If so, let's cite those sources.  If not, let's tone down the comment as a fringe opinion rather than something mainstream.  In other words, our article should provide a neutral and encyclopedic summary of the information about Pauline. We're not trying to honor her or dishonor her, we're just trying to provide information. If anyone thinks that we're here for other reasons, then maybe we should withdraw the FA nom until we're all clear on just what it is that we're here for? --Elonka 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what Wikipedia is for, and no one is here to honour or dishonour a fictional soap opera character, so don't patronise, please.

We haven’t reported on every opinion that has shown up in tabloids, and seeing as you are not from the UK then perhaps you should take a moment to familiarise yourself with The Guardian (broadsheet) and BBC News, which are where those quotes were taken from. Note that neither are tabloids.

No single view is a representative sample of opinion, and being a reporter does not make their opinion more representative as you seem to be suggesting. This is why we have included many views from many sources, so that our coverage is comprehensive. I think you're just creating problems where there aren't any. The box is merely there to break up the text and give a snippet of what's included in the reception section. There are two boxes, one with a positive opinion and one with a negative one, so there's no bias. Perhaps you should view some other articles that use quote boxes. Not every quote box on Wikipedia contains a "comment repeated over and over in other news sources". Gung adin  ♦  01:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Gungadin, your comments would have more weight if you were able to present them in a more civil tone. You've now accused me of being patronizing, of having a problem, of creating problems, of pushing a bias, of trying to censor criticism, and you are further taking a swipe at me for "not being from the UK."  Can we please stick to discussing the article, instead of any shortcomings that you think I may or may not have? I still maintain that it's a violation of undue weight to make a big deal out of one random viewer's comment from a BBC television interview.  The BBC was just getting random opinions from people on the street, there's no need to put particular emphasis on one of them by putting it in a quote box. --Elonka 03:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I have not been uncivil to you yet, my comments were about the article, I just happen to disagree with your opinions and methods. Perhaps you’d like me to symbolically curtsey every time I address you? There is no need to play the victim or wiki lawyer to get your own way . But just for the record, this self-appointed supervisory role you have taken on is not helping.


 * Seeing as you have accused me of being uncivil, then I’m going to defend myself. Firstly, if you don’t like being called patronizing, then don’t patronize. Saying things such as “Perhaps time to review WP:CIVIL?” and “If anyone thinks that we're here for other reasons, then maybe we should withdraw the FA nom until we're all clear on just what it is that we're here for?” are clearly patronising, and it’s me who should be offended, not you, because I’m the one being patronised. Secondly, you do have a problem with an aspect of the article, a fact, not an insult. You do appear to be censoring criticism; the give away was when you said "it's awfully strong language" and then proceeded to delete it in its entirety, not only from the lead but the reception too (but only after you had ordered me to delete it first). And also, I don’t appreciate your defamatory claim that I was taking a swipe at you because you're not from the UK. Clearly a non UK resident would have less knowledge about UK based media than a UK resident. I wouldn’t go making presumptions about US based media; I appreciate that US residents will have more knowledge on the subject. You have made all sorts of inaccurate claims about those sources, I merely advised you to better acquaint yourself with them.


 * Even though I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, I will nevertheless do as you want, because this boring argument is giving me narcolepsy. I'm going to remove the box, but please don’t think that my compliance will be an indicative response to any of your future orders. I just dont care enough to continue discussing this issue, and it clearly means more to you than it does to me, and who am I to deny you a little happiness.


 * I’m also going to preempt a barrage of policy quotes from you about my horrendous tone, so I’ll get in there first. No personal attacks and WP:CIVIL. Now you don’t have to bother. I’ll be sure to read them asap *Gungadin curtseys* Gung  adin  ♦  18:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, both of you just need to cool down a bit. This is becoming a bigger issue that it originally was, or needs to be. The article is about more than just one line of opinion, whether that opinion is necessary or not to the article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of quotation marks
I think more care needs to be taken when removing quotation marks from certain phrases and words. For instance, in a recent edit, quote marks were removed from words such as "formidable" and "important". This may give the impression that they are the opinions of the editor and not those from the actual source (particularly when the source is a book, not easily available for verifying). Gung adin  ♦  01:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I removed some quotes the other day, because I thought they were being used for emphasis as opposed to quotation. Feel free to add them back in, though it might be a good idea to rewrite the sentence to clarify that it's a quote. Like "According to John Smith, the final performance was "formidable". Though if there was already something like that, and I just missed it, please accept my apologies, and go ahead and fix. --Elonka 16:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tense
Alright, I'm confused. Do we start the article with "Pauline Fowler is a fictional character" or "Pauline Fowler was a fictional character"? I don't really have any strong preference, I just want something consistent. --Elonka 13:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion is, per the MOS, she will always be a fictional character--unless either all copies of her work are deleted or she jumps into reality. Saying, "she was a fictional character" insinuates that she no longer is. We shouldn't confuse not being a fictional character with no longer appearing on the show.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Arent these recent tense changes still inconsistent? To make it consistent you would need to change everything to present ie alientated would be alienates, focused becomes focus, remained on-screen becomes remains on-screen.


 * I get why we are using Pauline is a character over Pauline was (and I think it should stay as 'is' on that instance), but just because she is a fictitional character doesnt mean that past tense cant be used when discussing her. The MOS says discussion of history should be written in past tense. When we say Pauline was portrayed as opinionated, that is discussion. If we were using plot summary then present would be more appropriate ie. "Pauline tells Arthur her opinion". An example of a place in the article where present should be used is "Having successfully alienated everyone around her, Pauline planned to go to America to join her daughter". However, the article will still be a mix of past and present even if you follow the MOS, so I dont think it is possible to please the oppose voter on the FAC. Gung adin  ♦  14:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I mentioned to Elonka that there are instances when it is appropropriate to use past tense, but general discussion of the character as it pertains to her actions in the show should be present tense. Discussion of history pertains to discussion historical elements in the show that were not presented in "present tense". Like, discussing Pauline's parents before she was born. Since she was one of the first characters, I have to assume there were no episodes that dealt with her parents before her fictional birth--thus, that is "history" present in the show that wasn't actually played out, but simply mentioned. Pauline will always be portrayed as opinionated, that will never change--unless she returns from the grave (stranger things have happened in soaps) and she has a completely different personality. If I go back and watch an airing of episode January 18, 2001, she will always act the way she did when that episode first aired. I'm trying to go through and fix the lead to correct for those past/present combinations in the same sentence. Something like this--"Pauline was killed off in a "whodunnit?" murder storyline"--would be fine, because you are talking about the episode airing, and not the events of the plot.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that tense guideline is very vague and open to interpretation, which is why everyone disagrees on what it means. You say that "fictional history" refers to history of a character that occurs prior to their appearance on-screen, but it doesnt say that anywhere on the guideline. Everything that happens to the character is its "fictional history", therefore that can be interpreted to mean that any discussion of the fictional history can be in past tense. Or it could even be suggesting that only historical works of fiction may be written in past tense, like ancient mythology. Nothing is clear. I think it's a shitty guideline and needs to be more explanatory.


 * I dont see how the sentence about Pauline being killed off is any different to the rest of stuff you changed, because (going by what you said) if you see that episode again she will be killed again, and her death is part of the plot. But whatever... I'll go and ask the opposer to come and review and see if he thinks it's ok. Gung adin  ♦  22:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fictional history is something that was "history" in the work of fiction. Their actions are not history, their actions are present. I agree that the guideline is way to vague to be used properly, but for all intents and purposes, unless it's mythology based, it's typically present tense. The reason Pauline is confusing to read is because you deal with a soap that plays out day-to-day, in "real time". The sentence about Pauline's death--"Pauline was killed off in a "whodunnit?" murder storyline,[3] and made her final appearance on December 25, 2006."--the way I see it, is that you are discussing Richard's, which I think it could help to say "Richards made her final appearance on .." to give it more of an OOU feeling, since Pauline will be viewed whenever you throw in a rerun.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Good work going on here. I note that the tenses seems to be muddled once more from "Early storylines" section onwards. Has the tidying not reached that far yet? --Dweller 12:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm personally only halfway through that section, and there are points where its is written so that making it present tense would just read oddly. That's the problem that arises when you have joint plot-real world text occupying the same large amount of space.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't part of the stuff in "lineage" be in past tense? because it's the character's backstory that was never broadcast. The stuff from the "Swing and roundabouts" book in the first para Gung  adin  ♦  19:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As a followup, are we happy with the article's tense now? Or does anyone else still have concerns? --Elonka 01:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and did some more copyediting, which Bignole appears to be happy with, as he has changed to a "Support" at the FA nom. :)  Here's the trick that I used, in case it's helpful to anyone else.  Yes, to most soap opera fans, it seems clear that an event happened in the past, since soap operas generally don't repeat.  It also seems non-intuitive to put something into the present tense, when it happened in 1993!  So to put myself in the proper "copyediting" frame of mind, here's what I did:  I imagined that the entire serial had been re-released as a series of DVDs, named by year.  The 1993 DVD, the 1994 DVD, the 1995 DVD, etc.  That way it became much easier to distinguish between what should be present tense (meaning someone is actively watching the DVD), vs. past tense (an event that occurred in the news, when the episodes first aired).  There are still a couple sentences here and that look awkward (like using this system, they switch from past tense in the first part of the sentence that talks about viewer reaction at the time, to present-tense as it talks about what it was that the viewers were reacting to).  In some cases, I honestly think that the sentence could be written either way and still be correct.  Anyway, I'm glad that we're past this hurdle, and look forward to seeing final approval of the FA nom!  :) --Elonka 15:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done you, much appreciated! anemone  I  projectors  20:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this Elonka. Gung  adin  ♦  01:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
I don't mean to be picky but it's, brain haemorrhage not hemorrhage - it's an English soap!
 * Be bold and fix it. It was probably something corrected when I put it through WORD, when I was trying to fix "real" typos and sentence structures. I tried to avoid words that I knew were spelled differently, but I don't know every British spelling.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would but, I've recently changed accounts, it takes a while before I can edit this page, but it should be corrected, this is English English for an english soap, if it were Days of our Lives, I would change it to American English.
 * A few things: It's British, not English - you were right first time. Please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~). You could have requested a username chage at WP:CHU, which would mean no restrictions on editing semi-protected pages. anemone  I  projectors  18:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing content
Why are those references and content being removed based on a snobbish POV about tabloids from one editor? This is a fictional character, she's not real, we're not reporting on the war in Iraq here. You are butchering the article by removing valuable opinions, quotes, interviews and references that are all verifiable. I would prefer the FAC to be withdrawn. Gung adin  ♦  12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The FA nom has been criticized (rightly, in my opinion) for using too many references from tabloids and unreliable sources. Though I don't think that we should remove all tabloid references, I think that most of them should be deleted, or replaced with higher-quality references. For example, the Walford Gazette is not a real newspaper, it's a fanzine. It's not a reliable source. It's not appropriate for us to source things to message boards, blog posts, fanzines, or other general "fan comments."  Where it comes to tabloids, we have to be very very frugal in how we use them. Some editors on Wikipedia say that tabloids should never be used, because their sensationalist nature makes them unreliable as a source.  However, I'm of the opinion that tabloids can be used in careful moderation.  And definitely in the British press, there are some papers that straddle the line between reliable and unreliable journalism.  What it comes right down to though, is that if a major or controversial claim can only be sourced to a tabloid, and not to anything else, then we probably shouldn't be including it in the article at all.  It would be best if we only stuck to sources from "serious" newspapers. --Elonka 17:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, no offence Elonka, but I couldnt give a toss about elitist editors like Tony and his newspaper snobbery. This is not a bio of a living person. Nowhere does it state that tabloids cant be used as sources, this is just Tony's POV, and until tabloids are prohibited then he has no right to complain about us using published nataional newspapers as sources. They are not being used for anything controverisal. As I said on the FAC, "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". Nothing controversial about that. Walford Gazette is published material that focuses on eastenders,that's a massive difference from fansites and forums etc. Look at what the Gazette sources are being used for, they are just giving character commentary, again nothing controversial at all about that. Gung  adin  ♦  17:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's please keep discussions focused on the article, and not other editors. The main point is that we need to keep the information in this article sourced to high-quality references. An occasional reference to a fanzine may be appropriate as an indication of the fanbase, but sources like these should be avoided. If something is a major point to be made about Pauline, I'm sure that we can find a high-quality source for it.  If not, then it's probably not something that should have gone into the Wikipedia article in the first place. --Elonka 18:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with any removal of content now. Perhaps we should withdraw the FAC nom until we come to an agreement? Gung adin  ♦  18:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We should allow the FAC to fail rather than withdraw it. Yes, blogs shouldn't be used as sources, but I agree 100% with Gungadin about the tabloids. anemone  I  projectors  18:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize that the FA nom has been a long grueling process, but please don't give up now. It still has an excellent chance of succeeding. And we can include tabloids as sources... We just have to be careful about how we do it. Stay optimistic!  I still firmly believe that this article is at FA-class, we just need to cleanup the sources a bit. :) For example, I could use help in doublechecking all sources to ensure that there is a date and a listed author.  If there's not an author and date, then that's often a flag that it's an unreliable source. In those cases, check the publisher.  If it's a high-quality publisher (such as BBC) we should still keep the information, but if not, we may want to look at removing that particular source, or upgrading it to something that's higher quality. --Elonka 19:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will check refs etc and I'll try and find non-tabloid sources if possible, but I still dont agree that info should be removed if non-tabloid refs can't be found. Let's try to discuss the removal of large pieces of information before it's removed, so we can all have an opinion. I really dont think it's worth making this FA if it ruins the article, not for a little gold star in the top right hand corner of the page. The FAC has shown it's not possible to please everybody, no matter what we do. Gung adin  ♦  20:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. :)  Though, be aware that it's not just about making FA.  If a source is unreliable, it can't be used, and it doesn't matter if we're going for FA or not.  The main thing that the FA nom is doing, is getting a lot of very knowledgeable editors to spend the time to actually review the article and point out areas for improvement.  Though we may not always agree with their comments, it is worth remembering that some of these reviewers are taking considerable time to even offer them.  To get an idea of what this is like, go to WP:FAC, pick an article at random, and try reviewing it.  Or go review one of the nominations at WP:GAN. Anyone can be a reviewer, you don't need any special approval.  What I think you'll quickly see, is that it's not so easy to read about a subject that you have no prior interest in, and then offer detailed comments about how it can be improved.


 * It is true that some FA reviewers tend to focus more on form than content. Some reviewers may be quicker to point out problems with punctuation, and slower to point out actual issues with story and flow.  But in the case of Tony1's comments, he's actually quite correct that we can't use unreliable sources.  Not on FAs, not anywhere.  So it's not really an issue of whether or not these things are fixed now, or fixed later, they're still going to have to be fixed.  On the upside though, if we can pull together, listen carefully to the reviewers' comments, and cooperate on fixes, we will end up with a much higher quality article, that will get approved for FA.  And trust me, it's fun to be able to say that you worked on a Featured Article on Wikipedia.  It'll be worth the work, I promise.  :) --Elonka 22:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's my problem, because it seems he just went through the reference list, clicking on each one, and saw that we were using sources from "The Sun" (shockhorror!). I doubt he even read what they were sourcing or how the sources were being used, because they werent being used for anything controversial. They were mostly just third party courtesy links to prove the storyline happened the way we said it did. Reviewers are not always right, they're just giving opinions.

You're right, i've never reviewed FA or GA. I prefer to contribute to writing articles, finding sources, and extending them as best I can (my contributions aren't perfect by any means, but I try my best). But if I was into reviewing articles, I would make sure I wasnt insensitive to the editors who wrote them. And I wouldnt say: "The use of these references underlies, I think, the rather trivial nature of the article content". But i'm more than willing to help improve the article, and trying to find other sources is preferable to deleting all the information, so if there are certain parts you want better refs for just add them here and i'll try and find better ones. If we still cant find any then we can consider deleting. Gung adin  ♦  23:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, that sometimes reviewer comments are, er, less than tactful. ;)  It's just part of the flow of Wikipedia, dealing with them and moving on.  As for finding other sources, yes, something I'd really like is if you could find replacement sources for the Walford Gazette and "Digital Spy" information? --Elonka 23:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ive changed the Digital spy refs, one to a epsisode guide to the official site, and another tv ref to Gloria's greats, which is what Digital spy was reporting on, and her comments were taken from that interview (so it says). Here's a link to info on the interview, but the quote isnt in the bio description here . The other DS article is a straight interview with Richard that she gave to digital spy, surely that one's ok to use? The walford Gazette stuff wont be possible to find another source for, because they are direct quotes taken from their articles. Gung adin  ♦  23:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with using quotes from tabloids, is that they're often false. Tabloids are notorious for saying things like, "A source said," which may mean that someone at the tabloid said it, which means that suddenly they are a source.  :)  In more extreme cases, they're not even that subtle, and will just make a quote up that sounds like it might have come from that source, when in reality they never interviewed the source at all.  For example, in this 2004 article (about me) that appeared in Woman's World, I can tell you from firsthand experience that most of the quotes were completely manufactured by the writer, who never even spoke to some of the people that are supposedly being quoted (my mother and sister). The reporter did a good job at getting the general story right, but the details and highly-emotional verbs and quotes and exclamation points were just added for color.  Now, getting back to Pauline, if there's a quote that came from a tabloid, we can sometimes get away with using it, by saying, "According to the Sun, Wendy Richard said ", but this should only be done very very rarely, in exceptional circumstances.  In general, we should only use quotes from more reliable sources, and we should only use the tabloids as sources, to indicate that the tabloids were excited about a particular theme, or were running a certain headline of some type. --Elonka 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I appreciate that you struck out those comments instead of deleting and that you're trying to appease someone, but I don't understand why you think those comments are inappropriate to use. From what I can see, they are direct quotes from the actress. Being from a tabloid does not make it a lie by default. I added some stuff from her autobiography to replace the quotes you struck out in the casting section, but some of the others have been struck needlessly, esepcially the one from Radio Times, which isnt a tabloid, but a BBC magazine. Gung adin  ♦  22:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this isn't about me trying to appease an FA reviewer, this is something I feel fairly strongly about. Tabloids simply are not reliable sources. We shouldn't be using them except in exceptional cases. It's okay to have a few items sourced to tabloids, especially in the case of a topic that had wide tabloid coverage, but these items should focus on, "Here's what the tabloids said," not "According to this tabloid, here's what said."  We also need to work hard to ensure that the tabloids are being used sparingly, in proportion to the other sources on the page.  If an article has half of its sources from tabloids, that's a problem.  :/  But I do think we've been making excellent progress on cleaning things up.  :) --Elonka 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you see what The JPS said on the FAC? anemone  │  projectors  20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I completely agree with JPS, especially the part about "cultural prejudices". There is a reason why neutral POV is a "fundamental Wikipedia principle".
 * You didn't respond to the Radio Times comment Elonka, so I'm going to assume that that source is acceptable. Gung adin  ♦  21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ellipses
I hadn't noticed this before, but is there a reason why the ellipses have all been changed to '. . .', instead of using this ellipsis 'insert' button on the wiki edit keyboard '…' , which gives the dots much closer together

Is the large spaced version how we are meant to be doing it per MOS, or doesnt it matter? Gung adin  ♦  21:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know but if it's not MOS, I prefer "…" to ". . ."… There's a bit about usage at the ellipsis article. I was looking the other day for another article and I ended up using ". . .". anemone  │  projectors  23:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer ". . ." to the smaller version, but either one's fine, as long as we're consistent. --Elonka 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, it's nice to have a definitive answer. Alright, " ... " it is!  :) --Elonka 20:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Death
I think that we should add more abut Joe's confession and his descrption of his return and argument on Christmas Day and why Pauline had pushed him away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rello34 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We tried to summarise the plot details. It's currently a Featured article candidate, and the reviewers dislike long plot summary. I think we have covered everything anyway. The article says "It is later revealed that the killing blow had actually come from Pauline's husband Joe, who breaks down and confesses to Dot that he had rowed with Pauline on Christmas day (off-screen) and, in a fury, struck her across the head with a frying pan, causing a brain hemorrhage that claimed her life ... Joe, who is dramatically killed off after confessing to Pauline's murder, by falling out of the Fowlers' first floor window while trying to apprehend a hysterical Dot."


 * More detail about Joe's confession/death can be found on his own page and he confession happened several months after Pauline had already died. What else do you think needs to be said here? Gung  adin  ♦  20:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think why Joe did this, how Pauline treated him like a workman more than a husband (since he lied about his criminal past) how she dared him to hit her (and also comment that this happened after the confrontation with Sonia). I think the writers of this did a terrible job, a slap! I also think Wendy Richard was wrong, they did keep her promise. When Pauline leaves the message, she's not bitter or angry, she's sorry and happy (as she is staying). Also do you think we should do a section on how the destructive relashionship with Sonia built up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Rello34 (talk • contribs)


 * Have you read the rest of the article? Because of the way it's constructed (themes), we couldn't keep the information chronological. So if you read the section "second marriage" there's more information about why their relationship went wrong. There's stuff about Pauline smashing a plate over Joe's head etc. The stuff about Sonia is also covered in other parts. We have touched on it under "importance of family" - there's stuff towards the end about Pauline interfering in Martin's marriage to Sonia. And then, under "friends and enemies", Pauline and Sonia's feud is explained in more detail. Gung adin  ♦  01:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

FA
(going temporarily into American cowboy mode and waving hat around) Yeeeeeehaw! Congratulations everyone, we made it!

Thanks are due to everyone that has worked on the article, or commented on the talkpage. All of us working together have now produced an article that is considered to be one of the highest quality articles on Wikipedia, in the top tenth of a percent. We're one in a thousand. :)

I know it was tough going at times, but ultimately I think that the discussions were good for us, as they helped us produce an article that is higher quality than it might have been if nobody said anything.

Congratulations also to everyone for helping with what is now officially the first "soap opera" character article to have made FA status on Wikipedia. It's a nice tribute to EastEnders, and who knows, might even make Pauline herself crack a smile! ;)

For those of you who are more familiar with the character, what do you think she'd say at this moment? Any fitting words? --Elonka 02:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * She would probably say "Oh Arfur!!" anemone  │  projectors  10:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't believe we did it! Well done everyone, I feel so proud! What happens next? anemone  │  projectors  10:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats to everyone. I hope no-one minds but I've just corrected some non-UK spellings in the article :) Stephenb (Talk) 13:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, congrats; you've all worked so hard on this article, this is truly awesome news! &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 17:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Pauline is the second-longest running character to feature in EastEnders
Is that still true? Surely the character of Dot Branning has now run for 23 years (1985 - 2007) - the latter is not continuous, but the sentence doesn't specify that! Stephenb (Talk) 13:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dot first appeared in July 1985, until 1993 where June Brown took a four year break and returned in 1997, so technically she's been on 'Enders for 19 years, Pauline is still ahead of her, you cannot count that 4 year period as she was off-screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rello34 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to "second longest-running original character" to avoid confusion. Anyway, Pat Evans will shortly overtake Pauline, assuming she doesnt leave in the next 6 months. We may have to change the wording again if someone like Sharon Rickman returns (again!), because even though Sharon won't have been on-screen for as long as Pauline due to breaks, she will technically be a longer-running character, because she would have appeared over a greater period of time. If any other originals return we can just change it to "one of the longest-running characters", or specify how we are defining "long-running". Gung  adin  ♦  01:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible sources for this page

 * Washed out diva
 * TV Review —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gungadin (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)