Talk:Angie Appleton

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Coronation Street was praised for raising awareness of postnatal depression through the character of Angie Appleton? Source: Manchester Evening News
  • ALT1: ... that Victoria Ekanoye portrayed Angie Appleton in Coronation Street at the same time that she was filming for The Royals? Source: Radio Times
  • ALT2: ... that Victoria Ekanoye grew up watching Coronation Street before being cast as Angie Appleton in it? Source: Radio Times
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: I hope the sourcing is okay, I used to do it fully sourced on the nomination page but I have been advised not to do so anymore. Please let me know if these hooks are not okay and I will try to think of more. I had a great one regarding Ekanoye fearing that fans would hate Angie, but the source is offline (as it is a magazine), so I was not not sure if it was allowed. Please let me know if there any questions!

Created by DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk). Self-nominated at 00:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Angie Appleton; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: This was a fun article to review, not what I expected and I think that's what makes this a good DYK. The copyvio tool flagged this article a couple times but after checking all the copyvio flags were for quotes which were handled correctly. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: the same issues outlined by theleekycauldron at Template:Did you know nominations/Lacey Lloyd apply here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't replied to the other DYK yet as I am unwell, but I honestly do not see what the issue is with this article. There are reliable sources not only from Digital Spy, Radio Times, What to Watch and Inside Soap, but also sources from Female First, Manchester Evening News, Woman's Own, Liverpool Echo, OK! and other completely non-TV related news outlets. There is information that talks about the character's storylines, yes, but this is essential in order to explain the out of universe infob– for example, Angie's feud with Mary links to the reception that was received from viewers and links to how the soap was praised for depicting post-natal depression, and it also affects her characterisation; the marital problems section also links to how viewers wanted to see Angie with another man and also leads to the character's departure; the introduction section shows how Angie's character changed the dynamics of other characters and storylines; Angie accusing Mary of hurting her son showed how fans had been making fan theories about the storyline and showed how the actress was worried about receiving hate from the role, and so on. Plus, nearly all of the information is accompanied by the actor's thoughts on the stoylines and development of the character. So yes, there is sourced information about the storylines, but this is needed in order to properly talk about the out of universe info. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)#

The issue is that there is excessive detail on the in-universe information @DaniloDaysOfOurLives:. Take the "Feud with Mary and postpartum depression" section—there are over 900 words of plot details, which according to you are all essential to explain the 200 words of out-of-universe information? Not even a third of them are "essential"; most of them could easily be cut without compromising the article's intelligibility or comprehensiveness.

WP:WAF, which requires that the prose length "be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections, as well as the length of the story itself" is a guideline, and thus not optional. Also remember WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which is policy: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Have you addressed AirshipJungleman29's concerns? Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

DaniloDaysOfOurLives has been editing Wikipedia, but has not returned to address these concerns. Unless DDOOL returns, or someone is willing to adopt this nomination, this should be closed. Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I started trimming down the article about a week ago, but I realised that if I trimmed the article even more, then the content would be compromised and the article's quality would be reduced. Hence, unfortunately I am considering withdrawing this nomination. I really did not want to, as I spent a LONG time on this article and it was already approved and ready to go, but I would rather the quality stay good rather than cut things out just for a DYK. I will try to cut a bit more this weekend and ping back later. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

No, the article's quality being low is what is preventing it from running. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I am very happy to adopt this nomination, as I originally started Ekanoye's article, and it would be nice to give her an outing on the front page! Straight away I've binned the entire development section; aside from it being in the wrong place, most if not all of the content is either duplicated by the Storylines section or extraneous. I will pillage that section for anything left over - I need a day.--Launchballer 19:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I was contemplating over the past few days of what to do. In all honesty, I really do not think this is the correct way. If anything the storylines should be removed, NOT the development which is fully sourced and includes real world information. Please allow me a day to cut this down but please do not just removed an entire section, which took weeks to write. Update: I have removed the storylines sections and began cutting down. Should be finished by tomorrow.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: @AirshipJungleman29: I have removed the storylines section and cut down the development by a lot (more than a 1/3). It honestly pains me to do it, but it is better than removing the entire development section, which removed sourced real world information. I hope now it is ready to go. Please ping me if there are any questions. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The nominator's comments above indicate that they believe a section which combines real world information and plot details is high quality. This is not correct. Per WP:WAF, articles are required to clearly differentiate between real-world events, and in-universe plot. This article does not (for one on a soap opera character that does, see e.g. Simone Russell). If anything, the removal of a dedicated "plot" section has degraded the article's quality. MOS:FICTIONAL makes it clear that having a clear differentiation is not optional. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I would like to withdraw this nomination so I can restore the previous revision and then work on this over the next week please. I will work on improving the Development section and the storyline sections separately. I would like to bring to GA standards (as the person who made the article, it would mean a lot to me) and then nominate it for DYK if/when that happens, but I cannot do that overnight. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Fiction tag

See my comments above for context. The removal of a dedicated “Storylines” section has severely degraded the article’s quality. Now the only description of “plot” comes intertwined with interviews, “teases”, and other WP:INDISCRIMINATE cruft. This version by Launchballer is of such higher quality I would advise immediately restoring it; it is close to GA-class, while the current version is perhaps not even C-class. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I am going to work on fixing this. When the Development section was removed, it removed more than 3/4 of real world information. I will work on separating fact and fiction over the next week, but I do not thinking just simply removing the entire development section is good. Please give me a few days/a week to properly sort this out. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)