Talk:Poppy Meadow/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'm a bit concerned with the "speedy-pass" review that was conducted at Talk:Poppy Meadow/GA1 since in just a quick read-through of the article I noticed typos and problems with prose. On reading further, the article does not, in my opinion, meet GA criterion 1a, so I will conduct a more thorough review here.

On the whole, I think this is close to GA standard and you've done a good job squeezing the most from the sources about what appears to be a fairly minor and short-lived character. I don't think much needs to be improved, but there are some areas that are unclear. Obviously feel free to argue any points you disagree with.

Lead

"...appeared in several "filler" scenes which were substituted for cuts made from a controversial baby-swap storyline" — this doesn't really make sense; Poppy's scenes were not substituted for cuts, but for other scenes that were cut. Not sure how you want to reword this, one option is ...appeared in several "filler" scenes which were substituted for scenes cut from a controversial baby-swap storyline. Avoiding repetition of scenes would be good, but let's at least sort the grammar.
- Instead of the first 'scene' maybe 'clip'? Mayhem Mario 19:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the sentence to ...in several scenes which filled in for cuts made from a controversial baby-swap storyline. - does that work any better? Frickative 12:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again (this might seem like splitting hairs) the scenes weren't filling in for the cuts, but for the scenes that were cut. I've tweaked this toshow you what I mean, see what you think. The word substitute was fine, if you want to still use that. --Beloved Freak 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Her storylines focussed on her friendship with Jodie ... as the two added a comedy element ..." the use of as her is a little ambiguous and a slightly odd word choice. (as could be a synonym of because, or it could mean while.) Perhaps just and the two added a comedy element..."?

Wanting to avoid a double 'and'ed sentence, I've shifted the comedy part back into the previous sentence, so it now reads Poppy returned in June 2011 as a supporting character, and was used to add a comedy element to the series. Her storylines focussed on her friendship with Jodie and their intertwined love-lives. Frickative 12:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...The Sun criticised her axing." — the use of axing here is probably a bit too informal for Wikipedia.
- Done - Hmm.. I cant seem to think of another word for 'axed'. I put The Sun criticised her contract being cancelled- to formal or just plain bad? Mayhem Mario 18:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked this just slightly to ...criticised the termination of her contract. Frickative 12:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the reviews were mixed (although admittedly more positive than negative by the end of her run) I'm a bit concerned that including the Heritage quote in the lead is adding a bit of undue weight to the positive views. I don't know, I'd be interested to hear the nominators' views.

Hmm, my rationale for including it in the lead was that, until I read that quote, I wasn't really sold either way on whether this should even be a standalone article rather than a list entry (there was a discussion about it here at the time). Such strong praise from a respected source swayed me - more than anything, I think I added it to the lead to highlight that not all the sources are lightweight/tabloids. That said, I take your point about it perhaps appearing unbalanced. I've pulled the "welcome addition" quote in favour of "pointless and unnecessary" to even out the ratio of negative to positive quotes, but if you still think Heritage should be cut from the lead, I'll do so. Frickative 12:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ok, it's a bit more balanced now, and I suppose for such a minor character, it's helps to show why she's worth reading about.--Beloved Freak 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines

"...tries to set her up with Tamwar..." — this use of set up is informal Done

Mario, I hope it's okay that I've tweaked this a little, from ...whilst Jodie tries to get her a date with Tamwar Masood (Himesh Patel) but her plan is ruined when interrupted by Tamwar's mother Zainab (Nina Wadia) to ...while Jodie tries to arrange Poppy a date with Tamwar Masood (Himesh Patel). Her plan is ruined when they are interrupted by Tamwar's mother Zainab (Nina Wadia). Frickative 13:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Poppy advises Jodie to give Darren the silent treatment..." — "silent treatment" is informal Done
"She meets up with them in the café some months later, and is worried about telling Jodie that she is dating her ex-boyfriend. Tyler Moon (Tony Discipline) flirts with Poppy, which forces her to tell Jodie, who is happy for her." — These two sentences are confusing to me. Is she worried about telling Jodie she is dating Poppy's ex, or Jodie's ex? What does Tyler's flirting force her to tell Jodie? That she's dating the ex or that Tyler's flirting with her? And why/how does it "force" her to do anything? This may be a case of there being too much detail, which also applies later in this section. I appreciate that the character had only a limited number of storylines, but I would be wary of trying too much to flesh out this section because I think we've ended up with a bit too much detail for a general overview. Done

Again, I've amended the changed text slightly, from Poppy returns to Walford and meets up with Jodie and Darren in the café some months later, and is worried about telling Jodie that she is dating Jodie's ex-boyfriend. to Poppy returns to Walford some months later. She is afraid to admit that she is dating Jodie's ex-boyfriend, but eventually does so, and Jodie gives the relationship her blessing. Frickative 13:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Jodie suggests she work at the beauty salon in Walford as a receptionist" — this is the first mention of Walford, and for the non-fan, Walford could be anywhere. It might not be clear that Jodie is suggesting Poppy stick around where she is. Perhaps name Walford earlier, either when you first mention the local café, or when Poppy meets up at the café with them again, you could say she "returns to Walford" or something. Done
consider linking stag party as the concept has different names around the world Done
I'm not sure that Vanessa leaving or Poppy needing to support Jodie when Vanessa leaves are really relevant to this article. The relevant part is that after the wedding is called off, Poppy & Jodie move in together. Done
"Jodie decides to leave for London..." — isn't Eastenders set in London? Done
This paragraph seems to go into too much minute detail, it's almost scene-by-scene. Again, I appreciate that there's not much to go on for a character like this, but it's not really staying focused here (criterion #3b). Done

The changes here only really removed a few words, so I've pared it down quite a bit further. Frickative 13:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"her mum" — again, informal Done

Casting

"..."filler" scenes which substituted for scenes cut from..." → "filler" scenes which substituted scenes cut from or "filler" scenes which were substituted for scenes cut from Done
Personally I hate the word opine, and I think that efforts to avoid the word said are usually far more noticeable than just using the word said. However, that's personal taste not covered by GA. :)
Here though, "Bright opined that her first scene was also her favourite..." I don't think opined is appropriate. In her opinion that scene was her favourite? Either it was or it wasn't, it's not opinion, she's stating that as fact. If she was saying it was her best, then fair enough, that's just her opinion. Saying it's her favourite though, is different. The word also in that sentence is redundant. Done

Ha, sorry, I'm really not keen on "opined" either, but I always seem to end up using it! Frickative 13:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The pair were reportedly used to add The Only Way is Essex-esque humour..." — this is slightly awkward (try reading it aloud). I wonder if it could be reworded slightly.
Also, it's not the humour that The Sun is saying has flopped, but the attempts to add the humour. Done
"the pair" and "both characters" — it's not clear from this section who you're talking about. Chances are the reader will have just read the storylines, but I don't think it would hurt to mention Jodie's name in this section, or to clarify who Babbington is (I'd forgotten by this point). Done

Re: the last three points together, again I've tweaked the changes here. I don't think which The Sun assessed the attempts to add it had "flopped" really scans, and while naming Jodie and Babbington again is perfectly fine, the original links are so close I don't think they need to be repeated. It now reads: Kylie Babbington, who played Jodie, revealed in May 2011 that Poppy would be returning and would have comical scenes. Bright made her return on 30 June 2011. Poppy and Jodie were reportedly used to add humour to the soap, in the style of reality-drama series The Only Way is Essex, though The Sun assessed that this venture had failed.. Frickative 13:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In a interview with Inside Soap Kirkwood pondered on whether Poppy could return or not, saying..." — who is Kirkwood? At this point he's only been mentioned in the infobox. Give his full name and make it clear why his opinion is relevant. Also, I'm not sure that the "pondered on whether Poppy could return or not" fragment is useful. Done
If you mention Kylie Babbington's full name and remind readers she plays Jodie at her first mention in this section, you could also avoid the need for the bracketed part of Kirkwood's quote. Done

Characterisation

I'm not sure why so many citations are needed for individual sentences. For example, the first sentence in this section has four. Can't you find one source that supports that Poppy is Jodie's best friend? The fact that she's a brunette does not need a citation, nor really does the fact that she's a beautician (both easily verifiable and her job is part of her storylines). I'm not even sure that the "false nails" part is hugely relevant, but if you're desperate to keep that, that's two citations needed at the most. Surely the last sentence of this section, quoting the actress in an interview, only needs one citation, to the relevant interview. Done

Mario, if you want to keep the "false nails" part, I think the wrong citation was retained, so I've swapped The Guardian for The Mirror. And while this was marked as "done", the second citation wasn't removed from the final sentence, so I've done that too. (I know the same interview appeared in both publications, but I don't think the sentence is contentious enough to warrant two refs.) Frickative 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Susan Hill of the Daily Star called her "pretty"." — is that relevant to the characterisation? **Yes- I.M.O. its a critics view of Poppy. Mayhem Mario 19:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to disagree (and removed it from my first re-draft of this section). It's a flippant remark in the source article - Randy Anthony has spent weeks flirting with pretty Poppy - it's not really an analysis of her character. Frickative 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline development

Again, by this point, I've forgotten who Hawkins is, or why he's relevant Done

As with Jodie/Babbington above, I've removed the repeated wikilinks that were added here per WP:OVERLINK, but retained the reintroduction (Jodie's fiance Darren (Hawkins)). Frickative 13:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"put [...] on the spot" is visually a little awkward. Why not just put "on the spot"? Done

This was incorrectly changed to "put on the spot" - have fixed to 'put "on the spot"'. Frickative 13:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Perhaps there could be a little more (in the storylines section?) to explain what exactly the first scenes involved. All I can get from the article right now is that Jodie tried to set up Poppy with Tamwar and Poppy tried to get Jodie to give Darren the silent treatment. It's hard to get a grasp of exactly what reviewers were annoyed or amused about. It's not clear what was any more "irrelevant" about these scenes that any other of the soap's scenes. From reading the sources I get a better idea that it was specifically the inane chat between the two girls in those scenes that attracted attention.
- Done- May need editing. Mayhem Mario 19:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks of sources don't reveal any problems with close paraphrasing/plagiarism, or with WP:V. Sources used all seem — if not exactly high quality — reliable enough for this kind of article, and how they are used. The one image used is non-free and has an appropriate fair use rationale. The caption doesn't really make sense, but I see that was only just changed, so I've boldly changed it back. I'll put the article on hold for a week, which would be usual for a normal GA review. If longer is needed, then let me know. --Beloved Freak 13:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks for such a thorough re-review! It's incredibly helpful, and I'm going to start working through the outstanding points asap. Mario, could I possibly ask you to move your comments onto new lines? It's a little difficult in places to tell where BelovedFreak's comments end and your replies begin. Frickative 16:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) I have this page watchlisted, but my watchlist's quite long at the moment so if I don't appear to respond when you're done, feel free to ping me on my talkpage. --Beloved Freak 19:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a pest, but could we possibly have a short extension? Only a few days - from 1 Dec on I'll have plenty of time to attend to it, I'm just working pretty flat out until then, and finding it hard to free up more than a few minutes at a time! Frickative 20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds fine. --Beloved Freak 13:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your patience. I've now been through everything, and have hopefully addressed the outstanding points :) Frickative 13:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good now. Good job both of you. I'm happy to leave it listed as a GA.--Beloved Freak 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]