Talk:History of Hollyoaks

Multiple problems with style/phrasing

Does anyone else find this article to be written a little too loosely? I don't know if it is my pedantic mindset or a real issue. For example, in the lead section: * Hollyoaks began airing on Channel 4 on 23 October 1995 and has gone through a series of changes throughout - throughout what?

• Channel 4 commissioned the serial in 1995 after producer Phil Redmond successfully pitched the best idea- best idea for what?
• initially followed the lives of seven teenagers living in Chester - Chester where?
• it began airing a second episode - presumably two episodes being aired per week, not a second episode (which would imply only one episode had been broadcast - I've heard of repeats but this is ridiculous <g>)
• had a element of comedy - if it is still broadcast then it "has"; if it is no longer broadcast then the start of the sentence is the wrong tense
• It was originally thought to be to comedy based ... - thought by whom?
• ... so Redmond introduced a series of issue led storylines" - this seems to be a non sequitor: it was comedy-based so Redmond introduced issues - why?
• Jo Hallows took over when Redmond stepped down - took over what? Writing, directing, producing etc
• Bryan Kirkwood was appointed and transformed the serial - transformed in what way?
• won awards in bulk for the first time at ceremonies and received praise from those who had previously critisied the show for its acting and storylines" - spelling, grammar, had it won any awards before ("in bulk" implies that it had), isn't saying "at ceremonies" a bit redundant?
• After Kirkwood stepped down, Lucy Allan took over, she had previously been his deputy - grammar
• She carried on his work until a ratings decline happened - why the decline? What work? - surely "she continued to produce the show with a similar format and content until ..."
• She implented a series of plots included a non linear week of episodes, a flash forward episode and various others. - spelling, grammar, fails WP:MoS, vague on "others"
• Marquess was left with the task of reinventing the serial once more. - I can see no previous re-invention so why "once more"? Done

That lot is just from the lead section. I'd alter it but with so many things apparently "wrong" I'm wondering whether I'm completely misunderstanding. It is no wonder that the article is still in WP:GAN, though, if I am correct. It seems bound to fail.Sitush (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the imput. When I wrote it, I kept the lead distant because the rest was mentioned below. Give me five minutes and it'll read differently. =)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 19:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There changes have been made. One however could not, it isn't known why their was a ratings decline. Well it was never mentioned in any sources put it that way. (IMO and a lot of fan's opinions, Lucy Allan was not a good producer.. but we obviously cannot include that.)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 20:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am re-writing the sections. I'm not a fan, have only seen about 10 minutes of the programme in all of its life, but am capable of fixing a lot of the style stuff regardless. I might have to stick a few clarification tags in there where things are really jumbled up, but you can remove them when you go through the changes. Sitush (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou so much. I've been here for four and a half years and you're the first person who's ever been kind enough to do such a big task to help me. I'll certainly clarify the points you raise.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 20:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read your changes - much better I think, although there are still issues. Eg: "It was originally thought to be to comedy based by critics, so Redmond introduced a series of issue led storylines to highlight the taboo issues teenager face" - why is being comedy-based A Bad Thing? I think what is meant is osmething like "One common reaction from TV critics was their dislike of the emphasis on comedy and so ..." But, again, I am not sure. It is all a bit woolly.

There is another issue, though, with the entire lead section. Much of it actually duplicates the main article, which is not the purpose of a lead. I know you've helped out with a lot of GAs etc but I think WP:MOS has some tips that might be useful here.Sitush (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read the article on leads a few times in the past, the reason it duplicates some points in the article is because that's the purpose of the lead. To house some interesting points that will appear throughout the article, but not going into too much detail, which is the requirement, which Is why I kept it brief in the first place. (Also why are you highlighting redlinks? I think it makes it look untidy, and those highlighted at this point in time are not going to have articles because there is no coverage of them what so ever.) I'll make the change to the lead again, the one you pitched in the first paragraph of your reply. :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 21:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that redlinks were an issue. I've certainly seen nothing in guidelines.policy about them, and plenty of GAs have them. But the reason is simple: I'm copyediting and chucking everything at it - easier to take out later than to ignore now.

Take your point about the lead but it does seem to me to be excessive. Let's see what happens with my article on Churchill Machine Tool Company which has just gone to GAN - then we'll compare and contrast, as my teachers used to say. Off out for a beer and some warmth; will have another session on Monday if I'm not treading on your toes.Sitush (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm glad of the help. When the GA review happens, they can include this I guess as part of the process. I'm sure they can see I'm willing to make changes immediatley after they make a point.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 22:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just re-read WP:RED because of your removal of redlinks. I find it difficult to believe that, for example, a currently non-existent article about a TV producer will remain non-existent. And, alas, I recently had an involvement with an editor who claimed that there was and never would be any information on a certain topic, only for me to expand it from a 3kb stub article to a 90-odd kb one in about a fortnight or so. Whether they look "untidy" or not isn't the point. I will be reinstating them at some stage as they may in fact encourage creation of an article on, say, Jo Hallows (is that a female or male?)Sitush (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision of article layout

I have been thinking about this article over a pint of Joseph Holt's best mild and in between throwing the odd (very odd, as consumption increased) "arrer". My feeling is that there is a lot of information which might better be presented using a different method. It is difficult to rephrase events in sufficient ways that the thing does not resemble a list. Much of it is, fundamentally, a list of cast comings and goings. What would people think about setting up a table with headings as follows: date/year joined, date/year left, actor name, character name, producer at start. producer at end, reason for leaving.

This does not prevent narrative but should coalesce the salient points into a logical section of the article and would get rid of the nightmare of trying to make the article "readable" whilst really just regurgitating the same formula with different names. WP is not a list, but this is one of those situations where I feel a table would enhance the article structure rather than be detrimental to it. Sitush (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm not sure, we have lists of characters for the serial already with duration dates. (But not reason's for leaving.) Do you think it would be better to add some other info in to split it up? Like going into further detail of why the actress quit. I suspect after a few additions, I ended up finding info on why so many characters left and then I included them. (It would have been perfect if the other lists were not present though.. eek, I feel ungrateful now. :/ ) I don't mind keeping on and going over the things that need elaborating on, I can do that, however I'm obviously really bad at copy editing prose..RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

TBH if there is already a list of characters then 95% of this article is redundant and it should probably be merged. It reads as a poor, confusing list as it stands so why not just merge it with (presumably) a more clear list? Most of the actors left to "pursue other projects", which is a bit like a politician "spending more time with my family" - meaningless code which cannot be examined because of WP policies on original research/BLP etc. Sitush (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now trawled through the article listing the characters, referred to by user:raintheone above, and what is immediately apparent is that only a small selection of the people in that article are mentioned in this article. But - and it is an important but, I feel - this article more often than not gives no justification as to why it is selective in those that it names. It is in my opinion a mess and really does need a massive cull of details which are covered elsewhere or simply not relevant, I don't know how an article is removed from WP:GAN but that this one is still there is an embarrassment to WP. I'll do my best to fix it for basic style etc but we really need some consensus on where the thing is supposed to be going as at present it has little structure and even less purpose. Sitush (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - thanks.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 18:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes what? Sitush (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for calling an article I've worked on an embarrassment to WP. Sorry If I think it's a tad rude. The whole point not every exit is mentioned is because they are the ones without any coverage, therefor not encyclopedic, therefore have no place in this article. It reads like a list? Not really, there's plenty of development info and reasoning later on in the article. Not much information was avaialable for the subject matter when it occured in the early years because covarage was lackling for Hollyoaks. This isn't a list. I've said I'll fill in the gaps if you find any. But I havent seen any markers next to the casting. Plus you redlinked Jo Hallows again, which I don't see the point and asked me to explain things in the lead again when it is meant to be kept brief. A clear pointer on the MOS for leads states they should not tease viewers but not give everything away. I gave a breif overview of what Lucy Allan did, why start explaining every element of what she did other than a brief few things mentioned in a small overview.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 21:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have told you what the gaps are - it is "half an article" because it gives the appearance of being comprehensive but, as you say yourself, is most definitely not. To an non-viewer of the programme, such as myself, it is absolute gobbledegook in many parts - I've got two degrees from Cambridge and cannot make head nor tail of a lot of what is going on here with cast movements etc. It is confusing because characters are seen to leave but not arrive, or vice versa - people are popping up from who knows where and then disappearing without a trace, often with very little indication of what they did during there lifespan. Your early years coverage, however, seems to me to be far better than the later coverage as it does indeed fit the article title of being a history of the programme, rather than scattergun statements of occasional events. Unfortunately I am also finding examples of plagiarism and am having to rephrase to avoid it. More, although it has changed a bit now, starting consecutive paragraphs with the phrase "In [month][year]" makes it read like a list; using the words "quit" and "axe" everywhere is unencyclopedic language ... and so on. I am not intending to criticise what you have done, merely point out that it needs a lot doing to it. The embarrasssment bit was a reference to it being at GAN - I've no idea how anyone could have thought this was up to scratch for GAN when even yourself, the proposer, has said that it needed copyediting and that you are a bit weak on the written word (no shame in that). Why propose something when you know it is below par? It may explain why it is the article of longest-standing awaiting review at GAN. I'm at a loss, but if I have offended you then I apologise as that was not my intent. Sitush (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the redlinking, I have already explained why & have referred you to WP:RED. If you think it is wrong then take it up there, surely? Furthermore, I did a quick google on Hallows and came up with a fair few hits, so it seems unlikely that there is nothing out there about her which could be used on WP as an article as you claimed.

As far as the clarifications go, generally I would agree with you but I don't think you go bandying technical terms around in a lead: that is not teasing but obfuscating. I'd suggest that you rephrase to avoid using the term "flashforward" altogether (and, by the way) make your mind up whether it is "flashforward" or "flash forward", for consistency's sake). Sitush (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. You know, after the copy edit and stuff, if it gets a review with suggestions, it's so totally gonna be your GA. You should totally make it your pet project to help me make it more focused like the first part, aswell as a copyedit.. :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 22:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Is this why you have only got one offer of assistance in your 4.5 years (your words, not mine)? No-one "owns" a WP article and one of the principles of WP, as I understand it, is that it is a collaborative project. I have no desire to rack up GAs and, in fact, have none to my name although I have nominated one to which I have contributed a lot via a rescue from AfD after several experienced users suggested that I should do so. I seek no rewards, merely the promotion of knowledge. I regret to suggest this but I think that you may be slightly missing the point of WP here. It isn't an online fanzine and it isn't a place where you regurgitate almost verbatim content from others sources, reliable or otherwise. I do understand the difficulties that can be posed in rephrasing sources etc to avoid accusations of plagiarism, and I do understand that few people have a supreme ability to convey their point in the written word (indeed, I am not one of them!). But you have said yourself that a lot of things needed fine-tuning and this is the issue that is confounding me.

From a personal perspective I would have no great interest in being associated with this particular article. If it wasn't for the fact that you GAN'd it and it had been sat in GAN since 4 November before I spotted it then it probably would have passed me by. As I've said before, I know nothing of Hollyoaks, have no interest in any soaps and am approaching this as a total outsider. I have admitted my lack of detailed knowledge of the subject and am merely trying to make some sense out of it, which perhaps is easier to do when you are in my position because you can, in theory at least, see the wood rather than the trees. I do not claim to be right but I am trying to consider your points and reference back to WP policy and guidelines. I may be wrong but throwing the baby out with the bathwater with comments such as your last one is in my opinion not going to solve nothing. I might say that perhaps you need to be a little less protective of your input but in fact I am struggling to understand your comments and still query whether most of the article would perhaps be better merged elsewhere. Feel fre to seek the advice of others - I am not omnipotent. Sitush (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nooo, you've misunderstood my saying. :p I wasn't stating it's totally gonna be your GA because you've taken it from me. I meant, if it got to GA you would have done the hard work and would be the one who promoted it! (I actually hate it when someone makes and article and tries to stop people from editing it, more so I'd report them if it's persistant.) I'm not sure we understand each other that good, do we? lolRAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, misunderstood. Sorry. Sitush (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It was finally quickfailed because you added the template and tags to it. Also the single sentence paragraphs are there because you split them. It would have been failed eithwer way though. Plus it won't reach GA if editors only do half a copy edit on it.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish, sorry. Check the revision history for single sentence paras - they pre-date my involvement. What about the lead, which I have consistently said is poor. The tags are appropriate, as you should be aware & the reviewer was. It would have failed due to the numerous spelling, grammatical and style errors without my part-completed copyedit. As for doing "half a copy edit", well, it is pure coincidence that after 3 months at GAN I happen to step in and 3 or 4 days later it is reviewed before I have a chance to finish - not my fault, plus I am trying to seek some consensus about where this thing should go and an getting nowhere fast due to your protectiveness. I am leaving this article. I am fed up of trying to deal with an editor who simply does not understand what the problems are. Good luck to anyone who takes this on: to my mind there is too much enthusiasm and not enough thought regarding its content and structure. Sitush (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked and you split three paragraphs up into single sentances. Before they were paragraphs covering any couple of years in the show. If you want to gain consensus you go and put the word out to the Wikiprojects concerned. Plus I'd never talk to an editor the way you have done in this thread.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that you can find some examples, but there were plenty there prior to my involvement and I have been trying to untangle a right mess, which you have acknowledged. I repeat my earlier response to your comment that I am the first person to offer assitance to you in 4.5 years: perhaps there is a reason for that. Bye, and good luck. Sitush (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Another personal attack, that's about 12 now.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Some Suggestions from an Uninvolved Editor

What I see after quickly looking through the talk page and article edit history is that we have two primary editors who care about the article and have made valuable contributions. I also note that both editors see things differently and have trouble getting along. This is common on WP and in real life also so there is no need to blame anyone or accuse or pick a side. Better to just seek solutions. Here are some suggestions:

• 1) See what you can do to attract a few more editors to work on this article with you so you can break this one on one deadlock and take the focus off of each other. Try posting at the noticeboard for whatever project it falls under and see if some editors will join you.
• 2) Article talk pages are for discussion of content. They are not a place for discussing editor behavior or tendencies etc. At present both editors are violating this policy in my opinion. Maybe one more than the other, maybe not. Either way I'm not interested in becoming a referee. However if one person maintains this standard rigidly and another editor keeps making it personal then that may be grounds for a complaint on the Administrator Noticeboard.

Good luck, I hope you two can find a way to make this work.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I endorse the above advice. In addition, editors may gain some assistance from comments I made on my talk page in conversation with Sitush, reprinted in edited format here:

• It's actually not that bad an article. Line by line it's pretty okay, and well referenced - no problem with its current B class rating. You just need to fix the rest of the referencing issues, condense down the paragraphs into larger paragraphs, maybe stick in some subheadings, and then see if the entire thing makes sense or whether it could be improved by a reorganisation. It clearly would have failed a full GAR if it hadn't been quickfailed but it wouldn't have been a complete wash. These articles are notoriously difficult to write and I think everyone involved should feel proud that it's, on average, as good as it is. Just not GA standard, that's all. [...] In relation to the plots of soap operas and their behind-the-scenes working I, personally, would generally consider a dedicated soap gossip magazine to be a reasonable source unless it were making a truly extraordinary claim or it were contradicted elsewhere. But [...] I'll leave that discussion for those with more experience in soap articles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Hollyoaks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry you've had to wait in line so long to get such a depressing result, but I'm afraid I have to quickfail this for having warning tags on the article which are clearly still relevant. I'm going to take one more look over the article to make sure I'm right, and then proceed to fail. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I am failing this article under quick-fail criterion three:

• (3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags.

I am therefore proceeding to fail without conducting a further review of the article. However, I note that it is generally a well-referenced article, and I urge you to continue work and re-nominate in the future. High priority tasks include reducing the number of single-sentence paragraphs, considering further level 3 section headers to improve readability, and rewriting the lead paragraph in conformance with the manual of style for lead sections. Best wishes - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am actually pleased that you have confirmed my discussion points, and note in particular your concern about single-sentence paragraphs (one of the things which make it read like a list). Let's see if we can move things on a bit, although it will take a miracle to get it to GA status at any point in my lifetime. I still think that it needs cutting right back, if only to resolve all the issues of plagiarism and because much of the content is irrelevant to the article title. Also because much of it is covered in other, better WP articles. .Sitush (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)