Talk:Poppy Meadow

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Poppy Meadow is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 1, 2012.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 22, 2011 Good article nominee Listed December 1, 2011 Good article reassessment Kept January 24, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 31, 2012 Peer review Reviewed March 24, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 29, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

EastEnders This article is within the scope of WikiProject EastEnders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the popular BBC soap opera EastEnders 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.EastEndersWikipedia:WikiProject EastEndersTemplate:WikiProject EastEndersEastEnders articles Tasks for WikiProject EastEnders: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : All articles listed in Category:Stub-Class EastEnders articles and Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective Other : Improve to FA standard: EastEnders: E20 Improve to GA standard: EastEnders Maintain: List of EastEnders characters (2023), List of EastEnders characters, List of former EastEnders characters, List of awards and nominations received by EastEnders Get involved in the Wikipedia EastEnders Project. Fictional characters 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 articles Soap Operas 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 articles Women 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 articles

Jaqi Stephen like's Jodie/Poppy

[1] D4nnyw14 (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some info on Poppy's return in this week's (9-15 June) Inside Soap. - JuneGloom Talk 18:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There's an interview with Rachel Bright in this week's Inside Soap and I think the info could really benefit this article. - JuneGloom Talk 17:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• Poppy and Fatboy's red button escapade! [2] –anemoneprojectors– 21:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Metro interview –anemoneprojectors– 13:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Poppy Meadow/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ebe123 (talk · contribs) 10:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B.

   lists

   :

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A.

   References to sources

   :

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   :

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I have found nothing. Frankly, I've never saw a GA co-nomination. No dead links, no anything bad. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 10:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is

transcluded from Talk:Poppy Meadow/GA2

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I'm a bit concerned with the "speedy-pass" review that was conducted at

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'?
    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. --BelovedFreak 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?
    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.--BelovedFreak 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 Only Way is Essex, though The Sun assessed that this venture had failed.. Frickative 13:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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.
  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

]

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.
    Mario 19:23, 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. --BelovedFreak 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. --BelovedFreak 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.--BelovedFreak 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She left in November 2011, and returned in 2012, regardless of whether she is staying long term or not shouldn't her duration read 2011– rather than showing two seperate years, it's not like Amira Masood, who left in early 2010, returned in late 2011, if Poppys durtion is to show two different years, then shouldn't that apply to characters like Janet Mitchell who havn't been seen in ages? Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original consensus was that if a character has not been on-screen for more than one calender year, for example, leaves in May 2009 and returns June 2010, then the duration would read 2009, 2010—. If the character left in May 2009 and returns in March 2010, then the duration will remain 2009—. So You're right, Poppy's duration should read 2011—.

^Ping! 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

A calender year doesn't mean 12 months. It means (for example) a character could join in January 2009, leave in January 2010, then rejoin in December 2011, and we'd still put 2009—. Some people have since disagreed with this. But as for Poppy, she was away for less than 12 months, so let's stick to 2011—. –anemoneprojectors– 09:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would move most of the second para of the lead into the Reception section and replace it with a summary. --John (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any dissent here, I went ahead and trimmed it slightly. --John (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see an IP restored the material I removed without a rationale. Does anybody mind if I restore my edit? --John (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not me.

Fatuorum 17:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

When recounting the plot details, should we use present or past tense? At the moment it is a bit of a mixture. --John (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be present!! Bleaney (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be the literary present tense.

Fatuorum 17:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I accept that Wikipedia is always going to get filled with cruft, but how on earth did it get onto the Main Page? --86.167.46.90 (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same way that arseholes like you are allowed to rant on editor's talk pages.

Fatuorum 07:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

They did? Anyway, dear IP - coming here and rubbishing the work of dedicated editors is not going to make you any friends around here. If you feel that there is something amiss or incorrect in the article, you should bring it up in a constructive manner; as this is the spirit of the project. --Τασουλα (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love it that this is a FA and on the main page today! It's such a gender gap thing! I think that anytime this project can focus on female-oriented topics like soaps is positive. It's also positive that with this article, the amount of soap character articles that are FAs are now doubled, to two. (Pauline Fowler, also from EastEnders, is the other one.) I've reviewed a few soap character articles, so I'm happy to see that some of my issues with these articles don't seem to exist here--long, redundant, storyline sections, OR, weak prose. Nice job, and keep it up! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's so true! Are there really only 2 FAs for soap characters?! I think we need some more! –anemoneprojectors– 13:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. I agree; I'm seriously considering tackling Todd Manning myself. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to get into an edit war, it's in the template documentation

What it implies to me is that the documentation for the template ought to be updated and that other articles ought to be made consistent with this one, which is after all one of only two FAs on soap characters. Had there been a problem with dash usage no doubt it would have been raised at the recent FAC.

Fatuorum 14:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay then, I think you might find that's standard for all soap articles. See:

^Ping! 17:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't care about "the standard for all soap articles", which isn't any kind of standard at all, as they're mostly crap.

Fatuorum 18:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• I think I may have been the one who first suggested changing the emdash to an endash in the infobox. My copy of
  WP:MOS (although I may have overlooked it). What is the reasoning behind the use of the emdash there? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]