Talk:Episode 7116

Discussion on naming convention for articles on unnamed TV episodes

There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Titling episode articles without titles that would affect how articles like this one are named. Srleffler (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Episode 7116/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 16:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 21:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I will review this article to fulfil the pledge I made for Talk:765874 – Unification/GA1. I will try to get to it in the next few days. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! And no rush! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments

Criteria 1

Some things to address:

• and nods to the Britain during World War II -- should this just be "and nods to Britain during World War II"?
• Don't need to capitalise "Early onset dementia" in the middle of a sentence, and there is one instance where "Young onset dementia" is used which should probably be consistent with the other "early" instances.
• "Queen Vice" typo in a few places
• The plot summary is a little long based on the 400 word guideline at MOS:TVPLOT, but also there seems to be a lot going on in this episode and as it is there are a few places that could probably do with a bit more info ("to make it up to her", "why he hid Joel's crime", etc.). My feeling is try to keep it as short as possible but maybe go over it to make sure there is a basic explanation for each bit for readers who haven't seen the show. Some bits are covered in the production section so maybe don't need as much detail in the summary.
• marked 50th anniversary of VE Day -- "marked the 50th anniversary of VE Day"
• organised a street party in the soap for the characters of the soap -- "of the soap" not needed here
• Other spoilers revealed -- I'm not sure this is the right term to use here, maybe "leaks" or "early reports"
• reopen it in time VE Day -- "reopen it in time for VE Day"
• Can you clarify when it was added to BBC iPlayer?
• I think the reception section overdoes it a bit with quotation marks, particularly for single words that are already obviously coming from a reviewer. For example, opined that it had a "tragic" twist for Nigel does not need quotes as it is clear that "tragic twist" is an opinion from the source.

- adamstom97 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I will do these later today - thank you for the review! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: FYI I will be away for the next few days, if you can't finish this review today then I will put it on hold for a week or so. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I am really sorry - My mental health has been bad and I have been struggling with some personal issues and hence I completely missed this and forgot to do the changes. I have done the changes now - do they look open? Unfortunately, I could not find a time when it was added to BBC iPlayer in the sources :( DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for making those changes. Even if you don't know the specific time it was added to BBC iPlayer, it would be good to clarify. I have adjusted the wording and made another couple small changes. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Criteria 2

copyvio tool finds no likely copyright issues. I have spot checked the sources and found no issues. link-dispenser tool also finds no issues, and I appreciate the formatting and archives for the references. There are some places where the same in-line citation is being used to support multiple sentences in a row, in those cases you can just have the citation at the end of the last sentence rather than repeating it each sentence. My main concern here is the use of Metro as it is listed as unreliable at WP:RS/PS. My feeling is that in this context it should be okay to use in the reception section, but if it can be replaced with better sources in the production section then that would be ideal. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Adamstom.97:, per WP:METROSOAPS the use of Metro is allowed on Soap opera related articles. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, should have looked one line down! - adamstom97 (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Criteria 6

I think the article is just small enough for one image to be okay, if it was expanded much I would probably think that a second image would be helpful. Image is free, recommend that alt text be added per MOS:ALT. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Review status

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. You can locate your hook here.No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Premeditated Chaos talk 23:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that EastEnders celebrated the 80th anniversary of VE Day via a special episode?

• Source:

• • ALT1: ... that that EastEnders celebrated the anniversary of VE Day in 1995 and again in 2025? Source:
  • ALT2: ... that Episode 7116 of the British soap opera EastEnders archived footage of people celebrating VE day in 1945? Source:
  • ALT3: ... that viewers complained over the reopening of a fictional pub in an episode of EastEnders as they felt that it looked "almost identical"? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/CONUS Communications
  • Comment: Please feel free to tweak any of the hooks. For some reason it would not allow me to do this via the nomination form so I had to do it manually.

Improved to Good Article status by DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 32 past nominations.

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC).

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:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Hello DaniloDaysOfOurLives! The article was nominated on the same day it was promoted to GA. Overall, it is well-written and well-sourced. Earwig shows only a 35.9% similarity, primarily with source 5 (Radio Times) due to a direct quote from the producer in the Development section, so there are no copyright concerns. Since this article has just passed GA, I am skipping a source spot check. QPQ done. I personally think ALT3 is the most interesting and would attract a broader audience. The Manchester Evening News source supports it and is included in the article, so I am giving it a pass. My only concern is that the article has been rephrased a bit too much (for example, "almost identical" was used instead of "exactly the same"), which took me some time to locate your hook fact. Perhaps you could also use a direct quote from that review to better align with the wording of the hook? —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 17:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so so much for your kind review! I have tweaked ALT3, I hope it is better now? 😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, DaniloDaysOfOurLives! Yea, I think it is good to go now! —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 17:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)