Template:Did you know nominations/Louise Mitchell


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Louise Mitchell

 * ... that when she auditioned for the role of Louise Mitchell, actress Tilly Keeper thought she was auditioning for a character called Grace? Source: "She was told the audition was for a character named Grace, as they wanted to keep the identity secret."
 * ALT1:... that actress Tilly Keeper thought the development of her character, Louise Mitchell, was "quite organic"? Source: "Was Louise’s development this way planned from the outset or was it organic as time went on? - I think it was quite organic."
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Serpent labret with articulated tongue
 * Comment: Feel free to edit the hooks.

Moved to mainspace by Grangehilllover (talk). Nominated by Soaper1234 (talk) at 19:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC).


 * Reviewing now. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 11:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg New enough when nominated. More than long enough. Hooks ALT0 and ALT1 are both cited to sources that support them, and are both neutral. Hooks about a fictional character both involve the real world. Hooks are short enough. Article seems to be free of copyvio and close paraphrasing, hits on ECD are cited quotes. QPQ done. Article is neural, as are he hooks. Policy issues: article has a greatly excessive amount of plot summary, as per WP:PLOT and MOS:PLOT. I have tagged it with plot. Much of the sections with plot summery are completely uncited. I know that plot summaries are considered to be implicitly cited to the work summarized, but I believe that DYK rules still require cites, and later plot sections are cited.(MOS:PLOT says in relevant part: )  This is more important where the work is a series, not a single work, and cites could at least indicate the episode or episodes being summarized, which is not now indicated. Of course this problem would disappear  or be much reduced if the plot summary were reduced to a more reasonable length. These policy issues are the only problems with this nom, it is otherwise OK. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In the case of plot summaries, the general consensus (and this is usually followed by DYK too) seems to be that citations for plot summaries are not necessary, though they are required for discussion of the plot (like in Themes or Development sections). I took a look at the article and yeah the plot section is way too long, and honestly the length is a far more pressing issue than the sourcing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and your comments . I would tend to agree that the plot does not require sourcing, although should you feel this to be a pressing issue, I can add a general reference in the reference section. The plot is lengthy so I will try to cut down wherever possible. Thank you. Soaper1234 -  talk  15:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the general consensus - indeed I quoted the relevant guideline above. I do think that at DYK things should perhaps be a trifle stricter. At least the episode, or minimally the season in which a storyline occurs should be cited, I would think. I agree that the overall length of the plot sections of the article is a larger problem. It would also be harder to fix, I would think. In any case I have notified the nominator, and this page is also transcluded on the article talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So would you be fine with a general reference? I'm thinking something similar to that used on the Babe Smith article. Soaper1234 - talk  16:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I really wouldn't be "fine" with that. I think that there ought to be a footnote for each story line mentioned, giving the episode(s) in which it occurs. However, given the wording of MOS:PLOT and the comments of  above, I will not try to make this a condition of DYK approval. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * However, the excessive length of the plot summary is another matter. Currently the "Storylines" section runs just about 2,600 words, plus additional plot summary in the "Development" section. And that is after your edit, winch removed some 2,600 characters, perhaps 4-500 words. (It now, after the edit, runs a full 4 pages when copied to a word processor document, without section headers.) By comparison, WP:FILMPLOT suggests an upper limit of 700 words for the plot summary of a feature-length film. I really think it should be no longer than 1,200 - 1,500 words in total. This is for the article quality as much as for DYK. But since DYK rules specify "no dispute tags", this nom can't proceed until the plot tag is addressed, one way or another. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:FILMPLOT says: I think this should apply, and it has not in my view been closely adhered to. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but I would appreciate it if you would not be rude to me. I'm still working with the length of the plot and as I'm sure you can see, I have only edited one subsection of the plot and the second subsection is still to be edited. Please bear with me until this has been completed. Also, I believe when creating the article, the creator tried adhering to the EastEnders MOS rather than WP:FILMPLOT or any plot guidelines relating to films. In regards to footnotes for each episode, at a push, this could be sorted for any storylines since 2016, but I would struggle with storylines between 2000 and 2010. Soaper1234 - talk  15:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry i\that I seemed to be rude, this was not my intention. I was merely trying to make my view as reviewer clear. I did not know if you considered the edit I linked to above merely a first step, or a sufficient correction. I did not want to imply that I thought it an acceptable final state. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I had not previously noticed WP:EE/MOS. I now note that it says  I cited the FILMPLOT page as the closest one that I knew of to specify a length for a plot summary, and a reasonable analogy. I note that the page linked to above says that a storylines section should be  but does not give any specific word count. Of course, as a project page, it is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and does not override wider guidelines or policies. But I don't see any glaring conflict between it and, say, MOS:PLOT. Again i apologize for any rudeness. And I want to make clear that while I personally think the plot summery should include footnotes specifying episodes described, and it seems that the EastEnders project style guide agrees, that is not a policy issue and I would not make it alone a reason to reject this DYK nom. I accept that your aim here has been to improve the article and the project in good faith, and i appreciate your work. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. This is the most problematic DYK I've encountered so I'm still getting to grips with everything really. I view the linked revision as a first step rather than a final state. I'll continue working on it. I completely understand that it is a project and therefore, it cannot override other guidelines. I also understand how you cannot reject the DYK nom based on a lack of episode references, but I'm glad you brought it to my attention so I will try to look into this in the future. Thank you. Soaper1234 - talk  18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Out of curiousity, how long would you expect the plot to be, bearing in mind that this is a soap opera, which airs all year round. I've narrowed it down to about 13,000 characters, without references and sub headings. Soaper1234 - talk  19:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg  Any updates? It's been almost a month since the last comments. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still awaiting a response from as I have trimmed down the plot. Soaper1234 -  talk  10:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I seem to have missed a ping, my apology for that. There has been one edit since this duiscussion started that significantly reduced the size of the "storylines" section, this one. I commented on that edit above, at 15:13, 29 April 2018. I was under the impression that Soaper1234 intended to make additional edits further reducing the size of the plot sections. The storylines section is now about 2150 words. I suggested above that it should be no more than 1,300-1,500 words. That figure, however, has no real basis -- there being no counterpart to FILMPLOT for long-runing TV series articles with any consensus. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I will ask for additional input on this issue. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I've had a bit of a struggle chopping the plot, but if need be, I can always ask some other editors for help. Soaper1234 - talk  21:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I came by to try to help move things along. I see that some parts of the plot summary are now sourced. The plot summary is approximately 35% of the total text. However, in view of the lengthiness of the whole article, and the fact that the plot summary covers episodes over a 10-year period, I think we should overlook the current length and just pass this. Pinging . Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg It seems has not edited on Wikipedia since June 30, so I'm going ahead and approving this. Either hook will do; both are verified and cited inline. Rest of review per DESiegel. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)