Talk:Episode 6867/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 19:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 01:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I will be conducting a review of this article. Placing template to get the review started. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after initial review

I made some copyedits to the article. Feel free to revert if they are unhelpful.
"Everitt explained that he would always stand up for his city, and he also mentioned the depiction in a debate in the House of Commons." I am not sure this is needed in the lead, and can possibly be removed.
The "Production" section seems a little long. Some suggestions are below:

"It was announced that same month" which month? Many months have been mentioned in the section.
"EastEnders executive producer Chris Clenshaw said of the return, "I'm thrilled to welcome the fabulous Patsy back to the iconic role of Bianca Jackson. Although the character was last seen on-screen in 2019, Bianca still remains a fan favourite. We know our audiences will be thrilled at her return as she is thrust into the heart of the drama..."" I don't think this is needed. It is expected that production would speak positively of this return and doesn't add additional information for the reader.
There are two sentences about Palmer's thoughts on her return, and many quotes. I think this needs to be reduced to one sentence, with one quote maximum.
" McGarty believed that the episode would give viewers a reminder about Whitney and Bianca's relationship." Considering that we already know the plot of the episode, I do not think this episode is necessary.
"Speaking of Campbell's casting, Clenshaw revealed that he and his colleagues were "thrilled" to welcome Campbell into the cast, calling her "immensely talented".[3] Clenshaw also revealed that Zack and Whitney would be "thrust into the heart of the drama" due to Whitney becoming concerned for Britney's wellbeing" This all sounds like promotional language expected from a producer, and I don't think it is needed.
"Palmer called her return to the soap a "fresh experience" in "exactly the same place", explaining, "It always feels new - you always want to go back with a fresh head. You never really want to go back with the same head - I'm not here with the same mindset that I was when I left." I don't think the second quote is necessary.
"McGarty believed that the episode would give viewers a reminder about Whitney and Bianca's relationship." I don't think this sentence is necessary.
"Britney was described as being a child neighbour of Bianca who is being neglected by her mother, Keeley Wainwright (Kirsty J Curtis). Whitney forms a bond with the child and becomes concerned for her welfare." This was described in the plot, so I don't think it is needed here.
"McGarty revealed to Inside Soap that Britney reminds Whitney of herself at that age, and that she feels sorry for her and wants to help and take "her under her wing"." This is not really about the production, so I think it can be removed.
"The actress added, "All the stunt guys and women on this show always try and pull me back a little bit because I'm always saying 'Can't I just do that' as I'm desperate to do stunts when it's safe for me to do so"." I don't think this is necessary and can be removed.

The "Reception and controversy" is very long. I suggest that this be split or broken up with level 3 headings.
The first paragraph falls into the "X says Y" pattern. I suggest reading WP:RECEPTION for some tips on how to avoid this.
There is a lot of information about Milton Keyes's reaction to this episode. As someone who knows next to nothing about this topic, I did not need this much information to understand that the town's reaction. Instead, merge the second, third and fourth paragraphs and explain (without quotes) why the reaction was so negative in one paragraph.
Too many quotes are used to explain Everitt's reaction, and it is not necessary. His statements can be summarised instead, and his actions described instead.
I would give more attention to other reviews on the episode. Maybe when the text is trimmed down it will be easy to find, but I struggled in the article to find critical reviews on the acting, storyline, production, or other aspects of the episode. Some of this information can be moved from the "Production" section, but other information should be added to the article.

I will leave the review there, since it looks like the prose might undergo some changes. I will continue with the review once the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback and for all of your thorough comments and help. I will work on this over the weekend should have addressed everything by Tuesday evening. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]