Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Poppy Meadow/archive2


 * 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 not promoted by Ian Rose 04:19, 24 March 2012.

Poppy Meadow

 * Nominator(s): Mayhem  Mario  16:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after the first nomination brought up many points, which ultimately lead to a fail, and a polietly comment for me to nominate this article to WP:PR, to see what it brought up, then renominate it. The PR, brought up nil pou. Literally, see it for yourself. I have to admit, it may have brought up many points if User:Malleus Fatuorum hadnt done a huge cleanup of the article, but I think now it is at te best oppurtunity it could/can be. User:Frickative got the article to GA status aswell; so although Frickative may have not nominated this article for FA, I would like Frickative to get credit if this article does succeed, along with User:Malleus Fatuorum. Mayhem Mario  16:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Not sure your confidence in the overall perfection and lack of anything to be changed is correct:
 * "[...] is a brunette beautician who wears false nails." Of what relevance / significance are false nails to her overall characterisation? This section is weighted significantly to media opinion's about her character - is there no way that storylines involving her could be given as evidence of her other personality traits (e.g. her infatuation with Anthony)?
 * Hi sadly, the epsiodes now are unavalibale to watch. We dont nromally include quotes from the actual episodes, unless a point is made about it in the media. I have removed the 'false nail' quote. Mayhem  Mario  18:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In Reception: I would recommend that Katy Moon's discussion of Poppy be shortened - it dominates the entire section at the moment, seemingly becoming more Moon's than Wikipedia's.
 * Development > Introduction: "Kylie Babbington, who played Jodie, revealed in May 2011 that Bright would be reprising her role as Poppy, and would have comical scenes." This refers to the reprisal of her role rather than her introduction, right? It should be split off from the beginning of the section, which is her general introduction into the show and introduced in its own right. Make explicit mention to the fact she departs and then returns, and: Why did she leave?
 * Done the latter point. Poppy left due to her only being a guest character, then returning as a recurring. Mayhem Mario  18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Believe me, im not that confident about it! Mayhem  Mario  18:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done all points, par 1 part of the 3rd point as I do not understand it. Mayhem  Mario  19:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean the "Introduction" is a single block, even though it details two disparate issues: firstly, her introduction into the show as a guest character; secondly, her return after a departure of several months as a recurring character. At the moment the two issues run into each other without clear distinction (in fact, the lede is far more clear than the text itself). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AH, thank you. I'm thinking of splitting it into two sections, Introduction, then Return. Mayhem  Mario  15:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I took the liberty of just adding a space between the paragraphs to see how that worked and I hope you agree it makes everything much clearer. Obviously, feel free to revert or do whatever if you disagree / do what you feel is best. But you've improved the section anyway. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Verbatim quotation: You have reduced the Kathy Moon quote from 365 words to 329, but this is still way, way too long and disproportionate. What is it about Moon's opinions that can only be expressed in a lengthy verbatim quotation, rather than in a much shorter paraphrase using perhaps a few key phrases as quotes? Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have further cut down the quote as far as possible. Mayhem  Mario  15:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing my point. Moon's prose and the ideas expressed therein do not justify a quoatation of any length; the answer is not to keep pruning bits off it, but to do what I suggested earlier and use paraphrase. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So the length isnt to your requirement? If that is the case, I will try, if I can, to merge it in. Mayhem  Mario  12:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that Brian is absolutely right, so I've taken the liberty of hacking away ruthlessly at that overpowering blockquote. See what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for that, it looks much better. :) Mayhem  Mario  16:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum
 * The final paragraph of the lead doesn't quite work for me; the final sentence begins "Her return was viewed more favourably by the tabloid press", but that follows what appears to be a favourable review in The Guardian, definitely not part of the tabloid press. Furthermore, the paragraph begins with very clearly unfavourable reviews from the Daily Mail and the Metro which are tabloids. That just doesn't compute. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Storylines
 * "... Poppy advises Jodie to ignore Darren in order to manipulate him". Where in the citation given is that statement supported? So far as I can tell it doesn't mention Poppy at all. I thought the general rule with works of fiction was that the book/story/episode was the source for itself anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah! The first point is what you brought up at my talk page! I'll get on to that now, as with the second. The reference supports the whole episode, so it may not have it in wrting, but it was in the epsiode on TV. Mayhem  Mario  16:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just removed the tabloid part, so theres no confusion. As with the second point, the "Poppy advises Jodie to ignore Darren in order to manipulate him" is supported by the reference, is it not? The ref supports the whole episode and what goes on in it, so... yeah? Mayhem  Mario  16:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But the episode summary linked to doesn't mention that, so what's the point of the citation? It's not the summary that's the source, it's the episode itself. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the epsidoe itself, but eben though it may not be mentioned in the episodes summary, we still link it to that, as thats the nearest source to the epsiode itself. Mayhem  Mario  11:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Re the tabloid part: "Her return was viewed more favourably; several Daily Mirror writers gave Poppy positive reviews, and The Sun's Colin Robertson criticised the termination of Bright's contract" still doesn't work, as it directly follows the obviously favourable Guardian review, and isn't more obviously favourable than that. Would you like me to have a go at it? Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you mind? Are you allowed to do that? I would be extremely grateful if you would. Mayhem  Mario  11:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn- I'm glad to see this back here. I can't say I have any interest in EastEnders, but having a decent pop-culture fictional character article to point to would be a great thing.
 * "the Queen Victoria pub" I don't think we need a link here- my reaction was that it was a link to an article on the pub
 * Somehow, during the process it must have got unlinked, beacuse it was linked to this, so I have relinked it.


 * "Hawkins assessed the situation Poppy was in; as [Poppy] was loyal to Jodie, she felt she would effectively be lying to her if Darren did not confess." Is this meant to be a direct quote? What's going on here?
 * Changed Quote.


 * In the storyline development section, you refer to "Darren (Hawkins)" but "Anthony Moon (Matt Lapinskas)". Both have already been introduced in the storyline section.
 * Done


 * "Lapinskas deemed his character is "pleased that somebody likes him", and said that while he was also interested in Jodie, he was put "on the spot" by Poppy and so did what he thought was expected of him in asking her out." Tense switch.
 * Im confused, where is the tense switch?
 * I've changed it myself. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum did this point.
 * "on Tommy Moon dying of a cot death." Tommy Moon is linked above- also, you don't "die of a cot death" any more than you "die of A suicide".
 * "excellently written – very The Only Way is Essex – and made me" Already linked further up. Also, that Moon quote feels very long. Perhaps trim or split it? If that's absolutely not possible, a blockquote?
 * 'Unlinked and Put into Quote''.


 * "commented on Poppy's return that" Clumsy phrase
 * Done.


 * I'm not too keen on providing the publishers for all these newspapers and magazines- I'd normally just provide the name of the publication. That's your choice, though: As long as it's consistent.
 * I think it is conisistent, and it is used in all EE articles, so I would rather it was kept.
 * If you're happy with it, then that's fine. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd also recommend trimming excessive capitals from article titles. This Is Not Easy To Read Even If The Other Website Likes It Like This. (Don't do that with book/magazine titles or anything, though. Just article titles.) I did one that was really rather unpleasant looking, but there are others.
 * Done.

This really is a decent article. I do feel that it is close to FA quality. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Image check: The single non-free image is appropriate and has a detailed rationale. It clearly meets the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. I really don't think much more could be done on a minor soap character. Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. Well written and surprisingly well referenced, with an excellent balance of in-universe and real-world information. A great example of what an article of this sort should look like. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Just a slight niggle, Ref 5 was published on guardian.co.uk as it was a blog, not 'The Guardian' newspaper. – Lemonade51 (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Mayhem  Mario  16:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- I don't see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of copyvio or close paraphrasing; can the nominator point to a recent one at FAC, either for this or an earlier nom? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry? But what does that mean? :) Mayhem  Mario  18:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just what it says -- but if you don't know I guess you've never had one and need to be initiated... ;-) FYI, this is an example -- it has to be performed by an independent reviewer, so we'll add it to the list of image/spotcheck requests at WT:FAC accordingly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose after source spot-check. I opposed the last nomination here not even two months ago based predominantly on sourcing and attribution issues and recommended a complete audit by an independent editor. This doesn't appear to have been done before renomination. I found issues with 4 of 6 refs that I randomly checked. I do not believe this should become a featured article until an editor with a solid understanding of summary, paraphrase, and quotation audits each ref used in this article. Spot-checks:

Ref 1, seems hinky to me and violates infobox guidelines.
 * Article text: Our infobox lists Poppy's birthday as "21 October 1990".
 * Source text: Doesn't mention this date. We seems to be calculating Poppy's age based on her 21st birthday party being held in a certain episode. The problem is, the source doesn't mention the air date of the episode, and even it it was, this is WP:OR in my opinion. Also, this information is not written anywhere in the prose—there is not supposed to be anything represented in the infobox that's not also in the prose.


 * I've added it to the storyline section so it is not just in the prose. In EE articles we normally keep references in the infobox. Surrounding your question about the source, because obviously we cannot list the exact time and place in which the date was mentioned, we use a source we covers the whole episode as one, therefore referecing everything in the episode. Mayhem  Mario  16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ref 2(a), incorrect quotation formatting and violation of minimal change guideline.
 * Article text: "Both characters left the series on 14 November 2011, but with the 'potential for Poppy to appear again in the future'."
 * Source text: "'Like Norman, Poppy had always been a supporting character, not a regular, however we may well see her return again in the future.'" Two problems here. First, the source is quoted someone else, and this is not reflected in our text. Second, we've altered the quotation without using proper formatting. Please review WP:MOSQUOTE.


 * Done. Mayhem  Mario  16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ref 3(a), OK.
 * Article text: "Poppy's introduction was deemed 'bizarre and utterly irrelevant' by Jody Thompson of the Daily Mail"
 * Source text: "Instead, a bizarre and utterly irrelevant chat between Jodie Gold and brand new character Poppy Meadow in the Queen Vic was put into the show instead."

Ref 4(a), Violation of minimal change guideline.
 * Article text: "... and 'pointless' and 'unnecessary' by the Metro's Daniella Grama"
 * Source text: "As Jody and Poppy moved on to chat about peanuts, viewers were left questioning why on earth anyone thought this pointless sub-plot was necessary."

Done. Mayhem Mario  16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ref 24, OK.
 * Article text: "A spokeswoman for EastEnders confirmed that the scenes had been edited following viewers' strong response to the story, but said that no complete scenes were removed: 'Given the audience response to this storyline, we felt on this occasion that it was appropriate to respond and make some changes. The vast majority of material remains intact and we don't believe that those trims we have made will weaken or detract from the overall storyline for viewers.'
 * Source text: "The spokeswoman told the Daily Star Sunday: 'We can assure you that no complete scenes were cut from this episode. Given the audience response to this storyline, we felt on this occasion that it was appropriate to respond and make some changes. The vast majority of material remains intact and we don't believe that those trims we have made will weaken or detract from the overall storyline for viewers.'"

Ref 27, incorrect formatting of quotation-within-quotation (frankly, I'm not sure how much value there is in quoted a single, unremarkable word; just paraphrase):
 * Article text: "Kylie Babbington, who played Jodie, revealed in May 2011 that Bright would be reprising her role as Poppy, with 'comical' scenes."
 * Source text: "'She's just come back and I've been filming some stuff with her, which is lovely - some quite comical stuff,' Babbington said." -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * '''Unquotted the word 'comical' to avoid "quotation-within-quotation". Mayhem  Mario  16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Done all your points Laser brain. Mayhem  Mario  16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your speed and enthusiasm, MayhemMario, but I don't think I'll be able to withdraw my opposition until I see evidence that an independent editor who is knowledgeable about properly citing, attributing, and quoting sources has checked through the whole article. These are just samples, not a comprehensive list of problems. I found issues in the last nomination which you fixed, and I see that you claim in the peer review that you "did some edits, checked the sources, etc." That I found more issues this time (and at quite a high rate—4 issues out of 6 refs checked) indicates that you are not seeing the problems. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I expect that MayhemMario has fixed the specific issues you raised, but on the assumption that you consider me to be an editor who is "knowledgeable about properly citing, attributing, and quoting sources" then I'll commit to checking all of the online sources I can over the next day or so. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Serendipity, MF -- as there'd been no action on this for some time I was reluctantly preparing to archive the nom this very day. If you can rescue it to Andy's satisfaction it will be well worth the extra few days... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to carve a statue out of the cheese of your choice, if you were to do that. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support with comments There maybe an WP:OVERLINK problem in the referencing section. I believe you are supposed to only link terms on its first occurrence and not overdo it. Other than that the article, I believe, is FA ready. Best, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  14:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Mayhem  Mario  16:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, there are a lot of editors, myself included, who do not see this as "overlinking" but as the most sensible way to deal with things. For me, the consistency of reference formatting is important, and, further more, references should be able to stand independently. I've certainly formatted with "overlinking" in my featured articles. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Having looked at this in more detail given the observations by Laser Brain above I have to say that I think the whole article would need to be rewritten to make it consistent with the sources; it's not just a matter of tweaking a few words here and there. I'm rather disappointed with myself that I didn't spot that sooner. Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks for your efforts, MF. Sorry Mario, but based on the above this needs to be archived to allow you to collaborate with another editor to address the sourcing issues raised by Malleus and Laserbrain. After that, and a minimum of two weeks has passed from this nom being archived, the article may be re-nominated at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.