Talk:Phil Mitchell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EastEnders Portal

This article is part of WikiProject EastEnders, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the popular BBC soap opera EastEnders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at this page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

High

This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Phil Mitchell was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

^{Reviewed version: April 24, 2007}

1 Steve McFadden's sons
2 Wife: Kate Mitchell
3 Article
4 GA on hold
5 GA failed
6 Automated peer review
7 Fair use rationale for Image:Mitchell bros scenr1.JPG
8 Fair use rationale for Image:Nadia phil.jpg
9 Sources

[edit] Steve McFadden's sons

I've taken out the reference to his real-life kids because it doesn't belong in here. Will check it's in the article about the actor. raining girl (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wife: Kate Mitchell

Are they still married? Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 13:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, probably. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Surley Phil isn't still married to Kate if he just got engaged to Stella. He must have divorced her and we just weren't told. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparhelda (talk • contribs) 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Not necessarily, you can be separated and engaged at the same time. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

But they got as far as the wedding day. If he'd been about to commit bigamy we'd have known. I imagine it was just too much detail and we are to assume the divorce went through off-screen while Phil was away. raining girl (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're right, but this is a very old discussion! ^anemoneI_projectors 16:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

True - pre-wedding day though. :) raining girl (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article

This article needs to be in chronological order, and I'm not a fan of the "Women" section... the two major sections need to be merged, then split into smaller sections, and more information needs to be added pre-Who Shot Phil? Does anyone have any suggestions? I know Gungadin's working on an out of universe section for him, so maybe we can do a big overhaul of the article when she's finished... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Just do it. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

lol, I came on to this talk page to ask whether you guys were happy with the layout for this page or not, but I see you've already had this discussion :) I agree by the way, the article misses out on a lot of Phil's early storylines. I'll have a go at re-ordering and padding it out after i've done the out of universe stuff if you like.Gungadin 01:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've started rewriting it, adding the stuff from your sandbox, in my sandbox. Feel free to edit it there! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with editing pages in the userspace is that the page history is lost. It's not a problem if only one person edits it, but when two more people edit a page in the userspace, when it's moved to the mainspace, the edits of the other people are missing from the history. That's why I try not to edit your sandboxes. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I'm reviewing this article, there are a couple of things which need to be done in order to get it qualified for GA status. The article is not very well-organized, for example:

The lead section is poorly structured and too short for the size of this article (why divide it into 4 one-sentence paragraphs?) Please see WP:LEAD#Length. -(started - may need more Gungadin 15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

I agree with Gungadin. The lead is not OK at all. It doesn't summarize' the main content of the article. Moreover, the lead section should put more focus on Phil Mitchell, I mean the character itself. I think you should remove trivia or not important piece of information like "One of the soap's biggest storylines was the April 2001 whodunnit, dubbed "Who Shot Phil?", when the character was gunned down outside his home - by, as it turned out, ex-girlfriend Lisa Shaw." This should go to the article, not the lead. A W 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, you need a citation for Producer Corinne Hollingworth's comment. A W 17:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

*The sentence 'Below is an outline of Phil Mitchell's storylines during his years in EastEnders.' needs to be removed. You don't need to introduce in the previous section what will be in the next section → not logical.

There is a one-line section ("In popular culture"), it should either be expanded a little or deleted. The image Philmitchell2dtv.JPG doesn't stay in the right place as it should because this section is too short, please consider using codes like <br clear="all" />.

Paperwork (but also important):

*All fair use images must have detailed fair use rationale, many images on this page currently don't.

The reference list is too long, having two columns will give better layout → consider using <div class="references-2column"><references/></div> or {{reflist|2}}.

Pea ceNT 12:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to this article; I was gonna fail it unconditionally. Plot summaries way, way, way, way, way too long, see WP:FICT. Writing needs serious (non-trivial) copy-editing. I changed a score of incorrectly spelled words, but that still leaves serious problems with unencyclopedic language ("scarpered" etc.). I will WP:GA/R this article immediately if it is passed. Sorry! Obviously a lot of work has been put into it, but a lot more needs to be done. --Ling.Nut 18:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies I didn't bring out the WP:FICT matter earlier. Ling.Nut is right, it's better for this page to have a clear and concise plot summary rather than an exhaustive treatment of the subject. The article needs to use some trimming. ~~Please consider making it as easy as possible for the readers to comprehend the overall information.~~My two cents Pea ceNT 12:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What is "making it as easy as possible for the readers to comprehend the overall information" supposed to mean? From where I am, the information (which is the most important in the article - the storylines of the character) is very comprehensible! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. I mean that the article is rather long, which may bore the readers and make the material difficult for them to digest. Is there anyway you could "trim down" the text so as to make the article provide the essential and concise information? Pea ceNT 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I apologize for putting User:PeaceNT in a corner. This article has a few very significant problems. These problems are not minor:

Overall length. The article clocks in at 57Kb, which is remarkably long for a television character. The principla culprit is the storylines. The storylines should not be the most important part of the article. One or two brief storylines are often included in articles, to provide insight into a character. The character is the point of the article, not the storylines. This article seems to be a compendium of nearly every storyline Phil has even been in. Strongly suggest cut cut cut. Focus on perhaps two storylines that provide key insights — perhaps "Who Shot Phil" and Sharongate". As for all the others - delete in their entirety, leaving behind a summary paragraph' which briefly describes key or characteristic scrapes that Phil has been in, without providing excessive details.
Serious problem with in-universe text. Strongly suggest reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
Serious problem with non-encylopedic tone/language.. poached, scarpered, etc.

Those are the major problems that would lead to a quick-fail in my opinion. --Ling.Nut 17:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We were contemplating splitting the storylines section into a separate article and just providing a summary and link to the article in this page. Would that be acceptable? I know you think that we have put a lot of detail into the storylines section, but in actual fact there is very little when you consider he's been on the programme for over 17 years, in a 4 episodes a week television show :) I would hardly describe the use of words such as poach and scarper as a "serious problem", but easily fixed nonetheless.Gungadin 17:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article would be pointless without the storylines listed here. It's what a show, and ultimately a character relies on; so they should stay. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Ling Nut, have you ever watched an episode of EastEnders? The article simply cannot be cut down to just Sharongate and Who Shot Phil? - it's a ridiculous suggestion! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove any of the storylines or move them to a separate article, but there must be some way to cut the article down and use less detail. If I get time I'll actually read through it and see if I can make any improvements. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I think you guys might be being too strict as another article with a similarly long storylines section was passed as GA but it was commented that for FA we should reduce the storylines section. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent).

This is about tight writing (and encyclopedic writing). It is of course OK to put in a couple storylines. The point of the storylines is not to summarize 17 years of the show, but to summarize Phil.
Hmm. I've seen storylines in separate articles, but the writing guidelines (see links above) explicitly frowns on that practice. Better to simply trim the existing text mercilessly.
It's difficult for me to criticize the WP:LEDE, given that the article itself needs much work. But when the body is finished, you should double-check to be sure that the lede is a summary of the entire article.
Sorry to be the bad guy! It's very obvious that a huge amount of dedicated work has been poured into this article. But there is a lot of extra stuff that needs to be trimmed here. Keep this in mind: This is not about EastEnders, it's about Phil. It's not an autobiography of Phil (as a fictional character); it's a brief summary. --Ling.Nut 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem is - the storylines will continue to grow and grow regardless of any cuttings we make today. If we cut out the early info we will just get an over emphasis on recent storylines from other editors (as we have with some of the other articles).At least if the storylines section had its own page there would be room for expansion. Many other fictional character pages dont have problems with an over emphasis on storylines, because they are from films or serials with far fewer episodes, and each episode has its own article describing the storylines anyway (Like Lost for instance). We could never do that with a 4 episode a week soap.Gungadin 20:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's stupid. Utter crap. Anyone wanting to read this article will want to know about Phil's life, what has happened to him in his 17 years in EastEnders, readers won't read it to find out about how the character was created, or any of the other out of universe stuff Gungadin has felt obliged to add to the article to make it up to the standard of overly pedantic people like you. Storylines are the single largest part of a fictional character, and should not be shirked away like you are suggesting, and the characters make EastEnders - without characters and storylines there would be no show at all! And if it means abandoning the GA nomination, so be it, because whatever you say, this is a great article, and yes, it has had a huge amount of dedicated work put into it - it's a shame it can't be appreciated really. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't feel that way. We do appreciate all the effort that has been put into this article, the suggestions were made solely to help Phil develop to a better quality. I understand that you may not agree with the guidelines that Ling.Nut has cited, but we are part of an encyclopedia, and we need to rise to the standards set by the encyclopedia. I know the GA systems aren't your personal favourites, Tramplikey, but it is what Wikipedia strives for and what we must strive for too.

I generally look to an encyclopedia for a concise introduction. It isn't necessary for articles to go into details. If the readers want an academic analysis or more plot information, they should probably buy some books that analyse the show. In regard to your comment below, a brief summary would be an overview of who the character is and how he affects the plot. The storyline of course plays a part in representing the character, but not every event in the plot helps form who Phil is. Please reconsider cutting out details which don't have major impact on the character. Leaving out everything that has yet to prove important is not a big deal, after all, if something turns out to be significant later in the show, it can surely be readded in the future. Pea ceNT 11:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, as far as I know, articles on Wikipedia aren't meant to be "breif summaries" - and how breif is "breif"? "George W. Bush is the president of the USA." is breif - but that's not an acceptable article - surely articles are supposed to supply as much information on the subject as possible. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Trampikey, I'm sorry that your experience as a Wikipedian has led you to conclude that guidelines such as WP:FICT, WP:LEDE and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) are "utter crap." As with all such Wikipedia guidelines, however, they reflect the consensus of a very large number of experienced and hard-working editors. It seems reasonable to conclude that they contain some nuggets of wisdom.
I might suggest that you re-read (or read) them.
For example, from WP:FICT: "Plot summaries should be kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them. It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. "
Thanks! -- Ling.Nut

Oops I forgot to point out WP:LENGTH as well. Ling.Nut 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And myself, AnemoneProjectors and Gungadin, all veteran members of WikiProject EastEnders, aren't experienced and hard-working editors?! And as Gungadin said above, the storyline will continue to grow, and all of it is appropriate to the character's history. It's not getting removed or cut down, so I guess the GA nomination should be forgotten. I find you dismissive and quite patronising, also. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You may believe you are arguing with me, but that is simply not the case. You are arguing with WP:MOS, WP:LENGTH, WP:LEDE, WP:FICT, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), among others. You stand against them, not against me.
If you believe, however, that you are arguing only with me instead of with Wikipedia guidelines, then you can argue your case with many other editors at WP:GA/R.
I can tell that this article is important to you. Are you perhaps a little too close to it to see objectively?
Moreover, as you are obviously keenly (and somewhat impolitely) dismissive of the "utter crap" that constitutes my input, I will cease offering it. I wish you the very best of luck with your efforts!
--Ling.Nut 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure no one minds you pointing out errors with the article Ling.Nut. It is possibly the way you have done it that has irritated. Constantly emphasising the word 'Serious problems' is a little patronising to those who have spent hours writing the page (and that is subjective anyway). Maybe if you took a more tactful approach this wouldnt happen. For instance, User:PeaceNT was managing to highlight the problems, but still be polite, constructive and tactful before you barged in (twice).23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. It's not a question of "barging in," since this is a public forum, and the GA process is open as well.
Let's summarize: You see me as being rude and full of crap; I see one or more editors on this page as being unable to process a small spoonful of criticism in an adult/mature manner. Perhaps as time goes on, one or the other of us will be mature enough to realize that he/she was wrong. Until that day (which may come months or even years in the future), it's best if we simply leave it there. As I said, I wish you the very best of luck with your endeavors! I'm not going to reply again. --Ling.Nut 11:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you realise that it is a question of barging in, hence this conversation User talk:PeaceNT#Talk:Phil Mitchell. Like I said no one minds criticism here, we would just appreciate some tact too. I wish you luck with your endeavors too. Gungadin 12:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

This article's on hold expired and legitimate concerns went unadressed for all but three days of the hold. IvoShandor 10:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated peer review

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

This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- arguably
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[?]
Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): couldn't, wasn't, didn't, couldn't, didn't, wasn't, wasn't, would've, wasn't, couldn't, couldn't, wasn't, didn't, didn't.
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, El on ka 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mitchell bros scenr1.JPG

Image:Mitchell bros scenr1.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nadia phil.jpg

Image:Nadia phil.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.