Talk:Chrissie Watts

First comment

This article seems a bit...ameteurish at the moment, I think it needs to be cleaned up. (Jamandell (d69) 18:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC))

Fictional murderers

Chrissie killed Den in self-defence so I'm not so sure she should be in this category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.240.122 (talk • contribs).

It was still murder. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not strictly. Murder is the unprovoked killing of a fellow human being. If you kill someone in self-defence it's not classed as murder. ~~Anon~~

She still took a life so it is Murder.--Sheep 2009 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC Press Office clearly states Den was murdered, thus making Chrissie a murderer. –AnemoneProjectors– 22:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also her character profile on the BBC says "And unlike Den's other women, she was more than a match for him. Murder and mayhem followed." Meaning she murdered him. –AnemoneProjectors– 22:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

People like Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein or anyone who has consensual sex with a teenager are classed in the media as "pedophiles" even though they were actually ephebophiles because their victims were adolescents, not prepubescent children. So for Chrissie Watts, it was not murder but voluntary manslaughter. She killed Den because he tried to kill her by smashing her head against the fruit machine and pulled her down by her ankle, which provoked her to kill him. Murder does not apply to her because she never intended to kill Den in the first place, her killing of him only happened at the passion of the moment. So she is a fictional manslaughterer.

Sources

EastEnders actress Oberman quits Gungadin 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Killer Chrissie to leave 'Enders
• Den's wife shows up in 'EastEnders'
• 'EastEnders' star laughs at Den's death
• Three to plot Dirty Den's death
• Ex-'EastEnders' star slams script writers -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A brand new source! Digital Spy interview. This article should be very OOUable now. Might have a go tomorrow, depending on my mood :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've now included all of these sources on the page. If anyone has any others, please update the article! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Redoing the article

Of the Watts, the page for Chrissie looks like it is in the worst shape; so I propose to amend it over the next month or so following the EastEnders portal framework. Any external references and sources that can be found would be appreciated.

Chrissie's early life:

Anyone know Chrissie's maiden name? The name of her first husband? I recall that she had a brother? Is that correct?

Impact on show: Anyone now her episode count? Because she played such a dominant role in 05 (must have been the character to appear in most episodes by far) I thought that can be explored.

Casting: I recall the Patsy Kensit was considered for the role? Is that at all right? I have a reference for TAO only being cast at the last minute.

Finally; on the info box.... should there be a tag for "stepmothers" (stepbrothers, etc.). Not just thinking of Chrissie here, but more pertinently characters like Jane Beale?? Again, it can just be an option - if the family info box is otherwise crowded, then step-families would not be necessary.

Thanks! :) Familiae Watts (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Source

A radio interview you might fancy listening to AP [1] GunGagdin^Moan 01:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC) [2] VIDEO INTERVIEW GunGagdin^Moan 01:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying since July to get these but my computer just won't update real player for me, so if anyone else can access the two interviews and update the page, that would be great. Thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Return

do you think that eastenders will bring Chrissy back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheep 2009 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Try asking on one of the forums, there's plenty out there. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Storylines

In the process of re-working the "storylines" section to be more OOU in style, following on the style presented in Pauline Fowler article.

I would also like to rework the creation and reception sections - though unlike the storyline section 99% of the existing material I think should be kept and is perfectly fine as is. Familiae Watts (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the only article with "storylines" in OOU-style is Nick Cotton where all of his storylines are covered by the development so the section was deemed unnecessary. How do you think the creation and reception storylines should be reworked? I can't see how they can be, to be honest. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the article is still "C" rated.... so I assume there is work to be done, even if that just means polishing. The s/l section is rather oddly put together.... 2004 is effectively condensed into a single brief paragraph. I was thinking of updaing the article along the lines of the Danielle and Whitney ones, which I am taking as a blueprint.

As for the other areas, perhaps they can be expanded upon. The development section, for instance, could have subsections on personality, her marriage to Den, etc. Like other "good" articles have. That is all I am thinking of, and arranging the pre-existing sources and references around that?Familiae Watts (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine as long as the information is available. Have a look at the "source" section above, there's two interviews I've been able to access. The storylines section might seem condensed because we take care not to include too much information, basically keeping it as short as we possibly can. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I will do that. :) I understand the concern over "plot" length in articles, and agree that it should be kept to a minimum. I also am aware of my own tendency to not be very good at "cutting out the right information" as regards to plot, so would find your opinion on *any* changes I make in that area very welcome. I do feel though, that there is alot to explore in the "development" section for Chrissie.... even what is already there can be expanded upon to make the point about her personality, etc. I look at the article on Danielle Jones then at one on Chrissie Watts and think "huh?" Danielle's article is 3 times as long, and I don't think that should be right. There is, for instance, the stuff over inconsistencies in character and plot.... only hinted at in some remarks, but there were some very startling contradictions in the show during this time that could be pointed out. For instance, Chrissie was legally co-owner of the Vic, with an episode in Feb dealing with Den signing over half to her.... yet this was forgotten 9 months later. I think this is quite an important point to elaborate on. I think her marriage to Den and her manipulative nature should definately be sub-sections in her development; and the storyline section could also perhaps have 3 or 4 subsections to break it up and make it look a bit more presentable. I would just like to get the article to at least a B grading. :) This is no dig at yourself or any who have helped fashion this article. I understand polishing information can take time and I know your contribute to a vast array of articles.... I focus my energies, so I can give it the attention needed to do the finiky work! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Familiae Watts (talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's all fine as long as the information is available in reliable sources. The only thing I would disagree with is splitting the storylines section into subsections as we've been trying to avoid this. We tend to only do this if there's a lot of backstory to explain or the character has been in the show for many years so we split it by year. Chrissie was in the show for less than two years so I think one section for her storylines is sufficient. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Revamped article

Article has been completely revamped and reworked - hopefully for the better! ;)

I have nothing further to add to the Creation, Casting, and Character Development sections - have proofed them about a dozen times now. The references should all be correctly sourced. I do have 1 or 2 bits of info remaining, but atm am not inclined to take things apart just to put them in - and they may be better included in a potential page of the Den's death storyline anyway.

The Reception section has not been proofed as much, and I still see some errors in spelling and am not entirely happy with certain sentences and paragraphs, but will tune it up later.

The storylines section has not been touched as yet, save to add the subsections on background and create the 2004-05 heading.

I would welcome any thoughts on this article, and on getting it up to at least a GA standing......? This includes the storyline section - if people feel that is fine as is, then I am inclined to leave, save adding a few more sentences to flesh out the 2004 plots a little bit.

I also have one more screenshot to add to break up the Witches of Walford section a bit and will do so asap.Familiae Watts (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots ought to be kept to a minimum really, and most of them (in general, not just the ones here) fail the fair-use criteria. Looks like you stayed up all night editing this. Looks good and I'm glad you kept in the bits I mentioned above. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Understand your concerns on screenshots... I tend to have a bit of an irresponsible attitude to screenshot - that is to do them, present as best I can my argument for fair use, and then let them stand or fall. I do have one screenshot of Chrissie's clothes which I do think qualifies under fair use because it is a visual aid to illustrate the article point on Chrissie's fashion sense and Oberman wanting to bring some sex to the Walford city! ;) I'd also appreciate very much you have a look over my prose - to see if it is not neutral enough and to make sure that none of my own thoughts (ie: original research) have filtered through. I have tried to be as thorough as possible with the sourcing to demonstrate that it is not original research, but sometimes things slip through. If you have a moment I would greatly appreciate you having a look at that. :)Familiae Watts (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AP - there are way to many non-free images in this article. Apart from violating copyright law you will never get the article through GA or FA with them so I'd suggest whipping them out pronto. I think you would be lucky to be able to properly justify more than one. Best, Nancy ^talk 16:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No problems - I will cull. :)Familiae Watts (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Automated peer review results

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: can't, don't, didn't, couldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Familiae Watts (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

First husband

Something I've been meaning to bring up for a bit - Chrissie was married before Den. I've got a first name for the guy - Steve or something - she refers to him in a couple of eps I watched recently when "reacquainting" myself with her character for revamping the article. I think it's also mentioned that they were married for 5 or 6 years, but no dates are given. Should this be included somehow in the info box.

I'll try look a bit deeper for further info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Familiae Watts (talk • contribs) 22:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't remember her first husband ever being mentioned. But if you have a first name, then add that. The dates are unknown so that can't be added. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It was only mentioned once or twice; most particularly when Zoe confronted Chrissie about the truth over who killed Den and Chrissie then spoke about how she had been marride before but the marriage broke down and that she then vowed to do whatever it took to make any future marriage work - hence she planned to break Den by destroying him in the eyes of Sharon, and then build him back up again. She was one for the complicated plans, Chrissie! Familiae Watt§ (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Prepatory considerations for the GA review

• Well-written; check compliance with manual of style
• Factually accurate
• No original research; check for compliance
• Broad coverage; check for no unnecessary detail
• Neutral; check for POV
• Images tagged and relevant

Check that the article complies with the above; strike-through when completed. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue on neutrality; POV: I can't actually find a source/reference that is actually critical of the character. I've come across a few comments in forums from people disliking her, but nothing from secondary sources - aside from Tony Stewart's description of her as a "witch". When I put together the reception section I tried to take account of this by including Oberman's own descriptions of how Chrissie's characterisation was not always linear - that's why I wanted to move those comments there when I redid the article because I knew there was not much negative criticism associated with her character. Anyone have any sources that are critical of the character?? Familiae Watt§ (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You can only give a balanced view if there is both positive and negative criticism out there. Nobody had anything positive to say about the Ferreira family so there's nothing positive written in the reception section, but it still passed GA. As long as you don't deliberately ignore negative criticism it should be fine. I'm going to try to read through this today. I think there are some POV statements in there. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I do want to re-word the final paragraph to the creation and casting section, as the word choice I used is really too "enthusiastic" shall we say - but if you want to go ahead and fix it, fine by me. Same with any such POV issues you find. I do hope, however, that I have excerised most. I will be a bit dissapointed in myself if I haven't (the paragraph I've just mentioned is really the one I am concerned about - and also over the issue of OR. Everything else should, hopefully, be ok). Thanks for your help, AP! :) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really have a problem with that paragraph but feel free to change it yourself! I can see what you might think is OR about it, actually. I've found a couple of OR/POV issues and when I've gone through the whole article I'll post them here instead of removing them to see what you think. But so far, most of it is good. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks AP. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"The creation of a second wife for Den Watts was a courageous act on the part of the show’s executive producer Louise Berridge." I know you've explained why it might be considered a courageous act but there's no reference for it being a courageous act so I think it might be your personal opinion. The same goes for "Chrissie Watts was one of the most highly prominent figures in the cast, becoming the focal point of the show for most of 2005. As such her character was given more attention and development than was usual for such a duration in the soap." I think that can probably be removed completely. Also, where you've cited an episode, you should try to use the {{cite episode}} template. Where did you get the episode names from? It's my understanding that EastEnders episodes aren't titled. Also I think there will be some issues with the tense of the article, but it's very confusing when you're switching between real-world and in-universe events in the same sentence. I've not changed any tenses but it will definitely be an issue at FA, if not at GA. I don't think the magazine cover image will be allowed to stay in the article. In fact, the line about soap magazine she appeared on the cover of may not be necessary as it's mentioned in her quote but there's no source for the actual magazines she appeared on. I haven't looked at the storylines section. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll fix all that you mention... I haven't redone the storyline section yet; not too sure if it is needed?? Thanks for going through it all. :) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I got the episode "names" from the BBC EE website... I just assumed they were the titles as they were put as headings at the start of each ep synopsis. But I can remove to conform with the style used elsewhere. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Just on the issue of tense.... I've tried to look but is there a style guide somewhere for this? Should it be only one tense form (past/present), or is tense connected to subject matter (in-universe; out-of-universe)?? Familiae Watt§ (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The storylines section is probably fine as I would have attended to it when I first expanded the article when the Digital Spy interview came out. WP:WAF is the guidelines for writing about fiction. Tense is meant to be connected to subject matter. We had major problems with Pauline Fowler over tense when it came to the FA nomination. Gungadin (and maybe Frickative) may be able to help you better on that. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all well written, and reads well, but there's still some issues with POV statements. As a rule of thumb, anything descriptive needs to be sourced and/or put in quotation marks so it doesnt look like the POV of the editors. Also, even when sourced, it helps to add who has described the character as sassy a femme fatale etc at times, rather than just stating that she is this and that - just because she is described as such by The Sun for instance, doesnt mean this is what the creators wanted her to be seen as, it's just the opinion of that reporter. I did some cu in the personality section, added some fact tags - hope u dont mind, feel free to revert or alter if u do.GunGagdin^Moan 18:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 11#Chrissie Watts article for GA status for initial comments)

& now continuing from where I left off :)

• As has been mentioned above, The creation of a second wife for Den Watts was a courageous act is rather POV. The following sentence, ...their troublesome marriage largely anchoring EastEnders extraordinary success... references an offline source, and though a reviewer will almost certainly assume good faith on its contents, it may be helpful to include a direct quote supporting the assertion, and if not, at the very least include a page number in the 'cite book' template for reference.
• ...with Oberman eventually beating out high profile stars like Patsy Kensit and Joanna Lumley for the part. - As I mentioned in my initial comments, Walford Web doesn't really meet WP:RS, and I see it's used half a dozen times in the article. If you could find alternate sources, that would be excellent. For the Lumley info, here's the press release issued by the BBC on the matter, which is a much better source: [3].
• ...the subject of intense tabloid interest in light of his highly publicised return to the show. - Source doesn't mention tabloids, so a better wording might be whose return to the show was highly publicised.
• Although she was only in EastEnders for 18 months, such was the importance of Chrissie to the show and storylines that she effectively did a four-year stint - given the content of the source, I would re-word this along the lines of Although she was only in EastEnders for 18 months, Oberman felt she gained four years worth of acting experience in that time. Even if you choose not to re-word, "stint" is quite colloquial.
• However, the critical role of Chrissie to the show as it moved forward meant that Oberman came out of the uncertainty with more to show than most, "being offered an improved deal" and extending her contract for a year. - I've already mentioned the "critical" issue in my initial comments, and the Walford Web problem, so those aside, here's a better source about Oberman's contract extention [4].

Right, that takes me to the end of the first section, and now Casualty's on, so again, I'll return to the rest later :) Frickative 21:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Big thanks to all you guys for helping out.... I'll re-edit the article to keep in with the criticisms you have noted. It may take a bit of time, as something has come up that is limiting my time, but I will do it asap. Thanks again! Familiae Watt§ (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• On the subject of references: thanks Fricative for going through and looking at them!! I had so many that after a while, they all started to meld into each other. Sadly, I recently re-formated my laptop (in preparation for Windows 7) and forgot to create a backup copy of my bookmarks which contained links to all the references, so over the last few days I've been trying to build iyt back up again - but any suggestion or alternatives would be GREATLY appreciated (and i will use those you have kindly found). I do think that Walford Web constitutes a valid reference, but also admit that its validity is not as strong and that I should really keep it down to 1 or 2 references to it for the atrticle, so will try and find replacements for as many as possible (again, any help here would be very mucbh appreciated).

• The link to the quote: "Chrissie has a strong will and fights for what she wants" is to the BBC EE website, and I would prefer to wait until they have fixed their new website, rather than remove the reference/quote. It was on the character page, so I expect it to still be there when they finally get their act together.

Appreciate your close examination of the article, Frickative, very much, and also the input of AP and Gungadin.... thanks guys. :) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, am going to start work on fixing the article; alas I will not have too much time until end of the month so small changes to start - but have pencilled in the first week of Feb to really sink my teeth into this. Again, thanks to everyone who provided criticism. :) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to let all know of my methodology - I'm going to go through and fix the text and references first then go back and fix all the coding and citation templates. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd Revamp

Ok, major alterations are complete to the article - except the "Reception" section which I am doing presenting.

I have taken into account the much appreciated criticisms and notes provided in the above critique; I have qualified statements more, citing the source in the article. Sometimes I did not though, feeling that it hurt the flow of the text - please pull me up on this where you think it is still necessary.

Be as nit-picky as you like - I don't mind.

There are a couple more quotes/references that I need to replace/work in, but should not alter what is already there.

My own concerns:

• It can be difficult to "step back" from the subject matter when writing an in-depth article like this, and this can affect how the text relates to those not steeped in the material. I tried to have a step back a week ago, to get a fresh eye but I feel that shortly after returning, I had pretty much lost any distance created. Hence, I am not too sure if some things are clear. Also, I am uncertain of the length. I began cutting back some material because I felt the article was becoming heavy. Is it too long? Does it digress?

Any suggestions on further improvement would be much appreciated. I plan on nominating this article for GA status in the next few days, but as it will take time to be reviewed, still play to work on it in the mean-time. ✽ Familiae Watt§ ^(TALK) 06:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh - I will also go through and standardise all the cite templates too, just wanted to wait until I have made all the alterations first. (And I also intend to incorporate most of the remaining quotes in the lead into the article body - mostly reference section). ✽ Familiae Watt§ ^(TALK) 06:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I also found, after much search, a negative criticism of the character calling her a "ludicrus Lady MacBeth wannabe" - I intend to add it to both the lead and reception section as evidence that not everyone recieved her favourably. ✽ Familiae Watt§ ^(TALK) 06:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

This'll teach me to read the talk page before commenting - I didn't realise you'd already flagged the citation issue up yourself, so apologies for telling you something you already knew! Beyond that, as I said, it's looking great :)

Lead

• "the program’s biggest and most high-profile narratives" - did the Daily Mirror spell it "program"? I'm not great with British/American spellings, but I think in this instance it should be "programme".
• "almost 60% of possible viewers" - totally a matter of personal preference, but I think being exact and calling it a 55.2% audience share would sound more professional here.
• "departure at December." - "in December"?
• "notorious and villanous [sic] husband" - notorious and villainous according to who? I agree that he was, but for the sake of avoiding OR issues, I'd try not to apply adjectives like this to characters unless you're quoting a third party source. Same goes for "long-suffering wife" at the end of the sentence, and "dastardly husband" in the next paragraph.
• Links to The Mirror throughout the article all point to the disambiguation page rather than Daily Mirror.

Creation and casting

• Can you wikilink Anita Dobson in brackets the first time you mention Angie? I've done for the first time Angie is mentioned in the body of the article.
• Come to think of it, it's probably a good idea to do the same with Leslie Grantham the first time Den is mentioned. Same a above.
• John Yorke links to the disambiguation page, rather than John Yorke (television producer).

Personality

• Ref 21, pointing here [5], is dead. This links to the official BBC website which is undergoing a redesign. Hopefully, the character profiles will be restored.
• "Oberman declared, "Chrissie is the sort of woman I'd really like to be friends with," she says. "She's an Essex girl..." - I might be wrong, but I feel like that stray "she says" has gone unnoticed from a copy/paste from the Mirror website?

Mrs Den Watts

• There seems to be quite a bit of overlap with the first paragraph here and the first paragraph of the "Personality" section. Would it be possible to discuss Chrissie's personality singularly in the first section, and move all comparisons to Angie here?
• Ref 46, pointing at [6] is dead.
• "Chrissie and Den's relationship as it exited before their appearance on the show" - "existed" before?
• "I based Chrissie on Hillary" - is it made explicit in the Daily Mail that she's talking about Hillary Rodham Clinton? If so, I think a wikilink would be helpful to readers. If not, I think you're right to omit it for BLP reasons.
• As top dog is a disambig page, possibly consider linking to the corresponding Wiktionary page instead?

Witches of Walford

• "Richard Godwin of the Evening Standard" - the publication name should be italicised.
• Sam Mitchell links to the disambiguation page rather than . I'd also add Kim Medcalf in brackets beside it.
• "running rings round the Mitchells" - sounds a little colloquial, "outwitting", maybe?

Victim or Villain

• Wikilink Joel Beckett after Jake Moon.
• "both times stopped by Jake Moon at the last minute" - citing the episodes this happened in might be beneficial. FORTHCOMING
• "my friendship with you is the only good thing to come out of my relationship with Den, and I mean that!" - direct quote needs a reference. - FORTHCOMING

Storylines

• "on the 29 April 2004" - the 'the' is superfluous here, I think.
• "This is caught on CCTV by Johnny who informs Jake, who tells Chrissie, who begs Johnny" ...who swallowed the cow to catch the goat, who swallowed the goat to catch the dog, who swallowed the dog to catch the cat... Haha, sorry! Bit of a run on sentence here.
• "she cannothurt Jake" - 'cannot hurt'.
• "sacks her solicitor" - might just be me, but 'sacks' sounds more colloquial than, say, 'fires' or 'dismisses'.

Reception

• "regularly splashed across the tabloid papers" - again, I think "splashed" is quite colloquial. I'd be inclined to go for "printed in" or "covered by" or similar.
• "has since only been bested by a showing on Christmas Day 2007 (which drew anomalous large audiences for all BBC One programmes)." - can you repeat your first reference at the end of this sentence for easy verification?
• "When he got up it ripped his hair out![73] - missing a closing quotation mark.
• "Uncertainty came to be manifested in writing and scripts, with character inconsistencies and plot holes working their way into production. One notable example was ownership of The Queen Victoria, with Chrissie legally owner of half the pub after Den legitimately signed over the deed before they nenewed their vows in February. However, in November this fact was forgotten, with Chrissie represented as forging Den's signature in order to nullify her ownership of the pub which legally became Sharon's." - I think this verges into OR territory. You could cite the episode where Den signed over the deed, and cite the episode where Chrissie forged his signature, but adding A and B together to conclude that scripts were marred by inconsistencies and plot holes... to me that seems like OR. The more I think about it, the less I'm sure, however, and I'd like input from others on this one if possible :)
• "I don't agree with censorship but there has to be a level of responsibility." - Can you end the paragraph by repeating the Digital Spy ref?
• Wikilink Charlie Brooks after Janine Butcher.
• "In 2004 for Most Popular Newcomer at the National Television Awards;" - sentence fragment, reads oddly in context.

And that's everything! Minor nitpicks aside, it's a very good article, and definitely made for an engaging read. You've done great work and research. Frickative 00:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how close this is to being reviewed but I just had a quick look and realised the items in the lead section with references aren't actually mentioned elsewhere. Since the lead is meant to summarise the rest, I think these things should be mentioned. I did mention before that things referenced in the article didn't need to be referenced in the lead, but I assumed that everything in the lead was mentioned in the article. anemoneprojectors talk 12:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks! Ok, I'll fix it. I am going to rewrite the first paragraph of the personality section (there is some extra material I have yet to include).

Ooh, it's started! anemoneprojectors talk 19:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm... I got side-tracked by some extensive editing I had to do for a GAN review!!! lol. I'll wait and see what the reviewer says. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 20:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Something wrong with this talk page

Er.... can this be fixed?

Ha, don't know why that happened. Something went wrong with the comments I transcluded from the Project page ages ago, so I've just replaced them with a link to the relevant section. The page should be back to normal now. Frickative 15:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, weird. I am on a very slow connection atm which is why I noticed it. Thanks. :) ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 15:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's because the WikiProject talk page was archived. anemoneprojectors talk 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Article promoted after period on hold

---

Reviewer: weebiloobil (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good morning/afternoon/evening/night/whatever time of day it is in your timezone! My name is weebiloobil, and I will be your reviewer for the foreseeable future. If you have any queries about the Good Article process, click here; any that aren't answered there, feel free to ask me on my talk page. A spare copy of the Good Article criteria can be found here. Good luck! - weebiloobil (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'm undertaking this review as part of the elimination drive. Feel feee to join in, we could always do with more reviewers! - weebiloobil (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Review

Hello again! Before I start, I just want to say nice it is to see that there is such a community working together here to improve this article. Rarely have I seen as much discussion as this for the betterment of a page on such an innocuous topic as a character from EastEnders, and of course it is of great help to me as a reviewer to see that a lot of thought has gone into this article reaching GA status. But I digress. What I am here for is to provide a review, not to praise particular editors, no matter how much praise they deserve, or indeed get. But now: the review!

Major points

Thankfully, there aren't that many of these.

• Images

The two images within the body of the article themselves are fine; what I am concerned about is the image in the infobox. The fair use rationale states that " It is not otherwise possible to accurately describe the appearance of the character solely through a textual medium sufficient to create a picture in one's mind"; however, there are two pictures of Chrissie in the article that do present her appearance. If you can come up with another reason for having this picture, then fine, but until then, I feel that this article contravenes point 6(a) of the good article criteria, that is that images have a suitable fair use rationale. Personally, I like having an image there just of her head, but I'm not here to provide my opinions.

On a side point, does the "all told" need to be in the caption for the picture of Chrissie and Den?  Done reworded to remove "all told". ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

JL, I've taken the liberty of using {{Non-free use rationale}} on the File:Chrissie watts ee.jpg description page and slightly expanding on the rationale, but the I think basic issue may remain. It's not something I'd considered before, but Weebiloobil is right, the inclusion of the other two images does suggest the infobox image violates WP:NFCC criteria 8. I wonder, however, if it could be argued that the other two images are so low quality that they're insufficient for visual identification of the subject? The dress image is a profile shot where the character's features are distant/blurred to the extent that she could just about be any generic blonde with curly hair, while in the second image she's turned to the side/in shadow and again her features are not clear.

I'd question how important the last image really is - would its omission be detrimental to the readers' understanding that Chrissie kills Den? I'd suggest not, and perhaps if it was removed and the low-quality/distant dress image was the only other image of Chrissie in the article, then the infobox image's rationale as the primary means of visual identification would be strengthened? Frickative 17:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Frickative - much appreciated. I agree that the third image of Chrissie is not essential to the article. The profile image MUST be retained, so I see no objection to "sacrificing" the third image if Weebiloobil feels it is necessary to strengthen the justification of the profile picture. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 17:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Stability

Nothing so much with this point - the article history seems to suggest that the article has gone through a lot of change recently, but I'm putting that down to getting the article ready for this review, so there's nothing to do here.

Nitpicks

Anything in bold is essential for GA status; anything else is just to help improve the article further.

• The lead

There are several uncited quotations in the lead; this is fine, as they are repeated and cited later in the article, but then there are also several cited quotations. I would advise you choose one or the other, particularly when there are lots of quotes in the same sentence (eg "Other critics have variously called Chrissie a "witch",[5] "venomous", and the show's resident "black widow"." - Yes, I was just about to get round to this, as another editor had drawn it to my attention, when you began your review, but we are aware of it and shall fix it. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)  Done All referenced material has been incorporated into section on "personality" and the citations removed from lead. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 17:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Jim Shelley

Shelley is mentioned as writing for the Daily Mail in the lead, but the same quote ("ludicrous Lady MacBeth wannabe") is then attributed to him writing in the Mirror. Judging from his Wikipedia page, and the fact that he writes for the Mirror now, I would guess that the quote came from the Mirror, but I can't tell for sure because the source requires me to sign up (or at least begin a free trial). I am assuming good faith for all the convenience links. -  Done I must have confused Daily Mirror for Daily Mail!! ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Mirror

Whilst I think it okay to use the term 'The Mirror' instead of 'The Daily Mirror', the link should at least point to the correct Wikipedia article, not the disambiguation page.This happens 4 times in the article.  Done ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Dirty

The third sentence includes "she killed her husband, Dirty Den, in a fit of rage"; the adjective 'dirty' had not been used before to describe Den Watts, causing a little confusion.  Done Sentence now reads: "she killed her husband in a fit of rage". ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• "beating out"

At one point, the article describes how Oberman beat out Joanna Lumley for the part; I had not heard 'beat out' being used before in this way, and Wiktionary claims it is a US usage. Seeing as this article concerns a British TV programme, I would advise using a more British turn of phrase.

• Original viewpoint

The second paragraph of the Personality section starts with "A key facet of Chrissie's personality is her wardrobe and style"; who has decided that it is a key facet?  Done Changed to "An aspect of Chrissie's personality is..." ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Jake Moon

Frickative mentioned this. "...both times stopped by Jake Moon at the last minute"; I would suggest some kind of reference, but I know this is forthcoming, so I won't press this too much. - This one may take some time..... I have the eps on DVD, but I just have to watch them. Unfortunately I am not sure exactly when these occasions occured, so it may time consuming. It would probably be easier just to remove the statement for the moment and replace it when I have the time to watch the eps. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)  Done I have just removed the entire sentence and will put back when I get round to locating the relevant episodes. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Anapodoton

In the section 'Victim or villain', a sentence starts with "And despite having killed her father...". Although this can be grammatically correct, it still sounds a bit odd. I don't know what you think.  Done Removed the "And". ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• And the last couple of things...

"The character's tough and steely persona was widely cited by TV critics. Imogen Ridgway...". The first sentence can't stand on it's own - it is unsourced. However, it can be combined with the second (...by TV critics, with Imogen Ridgway...) to make some sort of sense.  Done combined it. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"In contrast the tv editor of the Telegraph" - this should be TV or television.  Done

Looking back, this is a bit harsh for a GA review, but it can only go to improve the article. I'm putting the article on hold, so you can fix a few things. I've fixed a couple of typos myself. Feel free to come and complain on my talk page if you think I'm being a bit mean, but otherwise, I'll keep popping by to see how you're getting on. Bye for now! - weebiloobil (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you are not being harsh. We hope to take this article to FA eventually, so it is all good to deal with any issues now rather than later. I don't see any problems with the problems you have raised, and either myself or another editor will rectify the issues asap. Thanks again for your review, as having undertaken a number of reviews myself, I am aware that this is somewhat of a "meaty" article. Thanks again. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything that I've asked for has been done; as such, I have no problem with promoting this article. Congratulations! - weebiloobil (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

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.

Getting FA status

Ok, so finally Chrissie Watts has got GA status.... as I said I would like to get this article up to FA status, as I think its viable. There are a number of issues that I know of that need to be fixed before this article is submitted:

• The first paragraph of the personality section needs to be re-written so that it does not overlap with the first paragraph of the "Mrs Den Watts" section.

• The citations all need to be wikilinked in places where they aren't.

• The "Reception" section needs to be a tightened a little.

• And now the problem with the images needs to be discussed and addressed.

There is no immediate hurry - I will not be doing much on wiki until the last week of the month, but would like to get things started then. Around that time I will also do what rewriting and reworking in the personality and reception sections. There are also about 3 or 4 references I have still to incorporate. But in the next 2 weeks it might be good for any concerns or queries or wider disucssions regarding potential FA status to begin so we can get on our way. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 00:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Brand new source

Oberman: 'Soap life was like Hollywood' - specifically "there's something quite film noirish about murdering your husband. I often used to think, 'Wow - how would Bette Davis approach this?'" AnemoneProjectors 22:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I love Tracy-Ann - she's gives such good material!!! Have you included that somewhere yet AP. It's a good quote. Good knows where it can go though. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't include it, I just bunged it here because I didn't know what to do with it - talk pages are full of sources that haven't been used in articles and are often the first place you should look to expand an article ;-) AnemoneProjectors 14:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes; the problem is working out whether they have been used already or not. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 14:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Have to do a search. But I would hope that people using them would come along and strike them out. AnemoneProjectors 14:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I know what it's like to act in EastEnders – and get mistaken for your character. I haven't read this but it might be useful. AnemoneProjectors 22:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chrissie Watts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/eastenders/characters/character_content/character_chrissie_w.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for //www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/haveyoursay/yourquestions/yourq_content/yourq_chrissie_s_look.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for //www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/backstage/cast/interviews/interview_content/interview_tracy_o.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chrissie Watts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100104191857/http://www.mb.com.ph:80/articles/236381/fashion-s-lookback-decade to http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/236381/fashion-s-lookback-decade
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.walfordweb.co.uk/articles-showarticle.php?id=203
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207123028/http://www.barb.co.uk:80/facts/since1981?_s=4 to http://www.barb.co.uk/facts/since1981?_s=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chrissie Watts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160110163335/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20041024/ai_n12911867/pg_2/?tag=content%3Bcol1 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20041024/ai_n12911867/pg_2/?tag=content%3Bcol1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120806183555/http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/we-love-telly/2009/10/eastenders-jack-branning-eyes.html to http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/we-love-telly/2009/10/eastenders-jack-branning-eyes.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/236381/fashion-s-lookback-decade
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622022625/http://www.barb.co.uk/facts/since1981?year=2005&view=top10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/facts/since1981?year=2005&view=top10
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.barb.co.uk/facts/since1981?_s=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)