Talk:Casualty series 29

Casualty series 29 has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 16, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 16, 2017.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the BBC medical drama series Casualty received criticism for a series 29 episode which featured a crash that viewers believed resembled the 2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash?

Television: Episode coverage / Holby Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the Holby task force (assessed as High-importance).

Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a derivative work. See Wikipedia's Copyright FAQ.

Connie is sufficient

/* Main Characters */ She is only Known as Connie. Reference removed as it had no connection with Connie. Soap characters are not "born" so removed neé. Do we want her maiden name here in her Lead paragraph? I think not. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Short summaries

Multiple times have I seen short summaries copied from another website (such as Radio Times or Digital Spy) and pasted onto the page, with a bit of tweaking applied. This is COPY-EDITING. Please stop this as ALL written material should be in your own words. 109.147.111.205 (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Thank you. I have been battling these blatent attempts to avoid breaching copyright infringements for many months. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My IP address is changing a lot for some reason, and I despise mobile editing, but this is the only way I can keep my IP address the same, so apologies for any spelling errors which may occur. I have noticed in the history you've been reverting many copy-editing issues, which is brilliant. I'll help keep this page free from copy-editing as well. Many thanks for the support, and it's nice to see a few people helping to keep this page free from copyright infringement! Keep up the great work! 109.147.111.205 (talk) 14:47, 5 Janaury 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! "109 ... 205" and Happy New Year! Any chance you might register? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you too! And I've decided to register! TheLostWonderer (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes

I've identified two issues in the 'Episodes' section of this article:

1) Short summaries (again!) are being copied from other sources such as Radio Times, BBC, Digital Spy; short summaries CANNOT be copied from other articles, even when provided with a source, as this breaches copyright rules. Furthermore, I've noticed some information being added to the episodes which provides no enhancement to the summary whatsoever, but only extends it, could we refrain from this in the future?

2) Episode count DOES NOT add up. I know we've taken the episode number (48) from the BBC website, but with Radio Times excluding the three exclusive Casualty episodes (DEADFALL, THE ROAD NOT TAKEN, HOLBY SIN CITY) taking their episode count total to 46. As there have been three exclusive episodes, there would be 49 episodes in series 29, not 48. Furthermore, this would mean Series 30 starts before it is really scheduled to, particularly as the first two episodes in Series 30 have been written and directed by Paul Unwin, and focus massively on Charlie. Would it be a wise idea to move the three episodes to the List of Casualty episodes page, class the episodes in a new section named: "Holby Noir", and then take the count down to 46?

Please say if you feel the idea suggested in bracket two would not be appropriate. 86.190.91.49 (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more inclined to believe the tally on the BBC site than the Radio Times one. Skarloey (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Episode descriptions from TV guide

Where do you get the episode descriptions from if not the official TV guide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You write them yourself. Wikipedia has a zero tolerance to copyright. All summaries must be written in your own words. 86.190.91.4 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 960

The episode description says "Dylan ... runs down to get his lucky talisman before escaping". What was that talisman? When I watched this episode, I got the impression that Dylan was trying to rescue the piece of paper with his obsessive–compulsive disorder-related checklist written on it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was it not some sort of coin or necklace thing on the table? I was just copy-editing what had been written initially, but I've missed a few episodes before the series finale so not completely up to speed on the context. Skarloey (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I re-watched the scene on BBC iPlayer, and can confirm it was his 'lucky' talisman. 86.128.48.252 (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article 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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Casualty (series 29)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

29 series is quite impressive. Hopefully it won't take me 29 series more to post up a review. Sagecandor (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 16, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Article is quite high quality. Lede is of appropriate size per WP:LEAD, introducing reader to subject and summarizing article contents. "Overview" section is so large that I would recommend splitting it up into a couple or even a few sub sections within the parent section, as a suggestion for going forwards after GA.

2. Verifiable?: Episode summaries are matter of fact wording per WP:PLOTSUMMARY, everything else in the article, all facts asserted, are backed up to numerous citations. Good use of in-line citation format.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article is very thorough, bringing together research from eighty-four sources on the topic. Covers major aspects of topic including Introduction, Cast, Overview, Main characters, Recurring and guest characters, Production, Reception, Episodes.

4. Neutral point of view?: Writing style as noted above is matter of fact wording. Article appears to be written in a neutral tone. All asserted facts backed up by in-line citations as noted above. Article satisfies NPOV.

5. Stable? Edit history has been stable for several months. Talk page is good also. Also stable since major expansion of additional material on 10 June 2017.

6. Images?: Two images used in article. Both have appropriate licences on their respective image pages.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

— Sagecandor (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.