This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
Fond(ish) memories of watching this show half-cut at dinnertime in my Young Ones-esque uni days, though I'm not sure I remember this character. Ah well.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Prose is a bit inconsistent - especially in the "Casting" section. Some sentences are pretty awkward or broken, such as "Loui's decision to quit matches that of co-worker and Zoë Lister (Zoë Carpenter)" - is that "and" meant to be there? Also, the section reading "Batley had originally wanted to quit the serial in December 2008 when her contract ran out. Kirkwood asked her to stay another six months with the promise of a good exit storyline for Sarah involving Zoe and Lydia Hart (Lydia Kelly).However she made it clear to Kirkwood and new executive producer Lucy Allan that she would leave after." is confusing. After what? If it's after the six months, then why "however"? I think this article needs a bit of a copy-edit, though probably from someone who knows the subject.
Everything's cited and backed up, there's no original research creeping in anywhere. I do worry that the vast majority of the citations are from one publisher, though (Digital Spy). Does Channel 4's website perhaps have anything, or even British newspaper or television magazines like Radio Times? It seems fine for this level but if you want to go FA in the future I'd try to go for a good variety of sources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Broad in coverage, keeps itself encyclopaedic and covers all that's necessary.
B. Focused:
Doesn't drift off-course. There's a danger in TV articles to talk about the show or episodes when it's not the article's subject and this doesn't happen here, which is perfectly correct.
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Everything's tagged and sourced grand, but I'd worry about having two non-free use images in the article when you could use just one. I might just be being a bastard about that though.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are used appropriately. I would expand the caption of the third image to include the name of the other character in question, though.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
For the time being, I'm going to put this article on hold. I'm a little iffy on several minor points but I feel I might be being unfair, so all I really need is for the article to get a quick copy-edit and I'll be satisfied, since that's what I feel the biggest issue is. If that's sorted out then I have no problem passing the article.|For the time being, I'm going to put this article on hold. I'm a little iffy on several minor points but I feel I might be being unfair, so all I really need is for the article to get a quick copy-edit and I'll be satisfied, since that's what I feel the biggest issue is. If that's sorted out then I have no problem passing the article.
I'm satisfied with the changes, and am going to pass the article.|}}
Comment - I have added four more sources. I have done a copy edit on each of the sections to make it easier to understand. I trimmed the stoylines down more too, I did feel they were a little long and wordy. If you want the second image removing, I will - I guess it is your call though. I always remove them if the reviewers feels it is not needed.Rain the 1BAM21:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
