Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive1

Pauline Fowler

This fine article about the 22-year-run of a character in the UK's EastEnders series is already at Good Article status, and we'd like to see about getting to Featured status. If successful, it will be the first time, to my knowledge, that an article about a soap opera character reaches that level, so this article will be held up as an example at Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders, Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas and WP:FICTION of how such articles should be written. Further comments from the community would be appreciated on whether or not this article is ready to go for FA, or what other improvements are recommended. Thanks, El on ka 16:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest switching the references to the cite web and cite news formats. Gran² 16:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that really make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Gran² 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, ref 39 is a Youtube video, which cannot be used as a reference. Gran² 18:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that, I'll get onto it tomorrow, :) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched the references to the cite web and cite news formats, but the YouTube video still needs fixing (reference 47) and reference 39 no longer exists. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the youtube refGungadin 22:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tense

Tenses are incorrect, see MoS (WP:TENSE). Matthew 18:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It happened in the past in an ongoing serial, it should be in past tense. I feel this is somewhat backed-up by the new rule saying that character pages don't need spoiler tags, so therefore it is perfectly reasonable that they are written in the past tense. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is still unconvincing as to why a creative work should be written in the past tense (and I'm unsure what this has to do with spoilers). Matthew 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to have this argument with you again, Matthew, I'm going to try and get the policy changed to say that past characters and past TV shows can be written about in past tense, which makes sense according to the language of English. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:TENSE is a guideline, not a policy, I feel that Pauline Fowler should be written in past tense as EastEnders is an ongoing serial, and therefore I feel that pages like Pauline Fowler should not follow this guideline. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand why an "ongoing" show warrants past tense. What does that have to do with anything? I understand that past tense "feels right" primarily because of the soap magazines and other summaries we're used to, but the whole point of the present tense policy is to stylistically separate fiction from actual events. This is especially important in articles like this one, where the character's onscreen actions are described along with real-world analysis of the show (casting, impact, etc). Further, the fact that a show exists in a tangible medium (film/videotape) that can be replayed keeps it perpetually "in the present," while by comparison a real-life event can never be relived. TAnthony 03:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the tense is going to be a serious problem (one that stops us reaching our goals), I will work my way through the in-universe sections and change it all to present tense. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having made the changes, I feel the policy is correct and all of WPEE's articles should be written this way. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a quick look-over of the article, I would disagree that the tense is incorrect. I am an advocate of present tense for fiction, and the "Storyline" sections seem to be in present tense. The "Character creation and development" section (especially "Narrative, impact and progression") discusses the character/storylines in an overview perspective, with behind-the-scenes analysis; past tense is totally appropriate here. I think the article was actually carefully constructed with tense in mind. TAnthony 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, it seems that I am looking at the article after improvement by AnemoneProjectors. In any case, it looks great, I'll try to do a more intensive reading soon. TAnthony 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I write this, the in-universe portion of the Pauline Fowler article remains in present tense, as it should. See further discussion of the issue (and some mention of this article) at:

Even if you disagree with the tense, if we want this article rise to FA status, it needs to conform to the guidelines for fiction (present tense), even if an "ongoing series exception" is created. Truthfully, a few users can't set this exception and expect it to become policy, especially when there is no convincing argument except that "present tense is awkward." I will say again here what I've written a few times in other locations: it doesn't matter if we're talking about 22 years of storyline, fictional events and references need to be stylistically differentiated from real-life ones. In context, a present-tense summary is not awkward if events are portrayed chronologically. TAnthony 18:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Book references need page numbers. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'll do that when I've had a look through the books I have to my disposal. :) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]