This article is within the scope of WikiProject EastEnders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the popular BBCsoap operaEastEnders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EastEndersWikipedia:WikiProject EastEndersTemplate:WikiProject EastEndersEastEnders articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
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.
Thank you again for your work on the articles. Since I had already had my review written up for this article, I might as well insert it to help the future nominator correct the issues in the article:
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
MyLondon (cited 2 times): MyLondon is the same tabloid owned by the Daily Mirror, Daily Star, etc., so it likely inherits the same level of reliability.
Given that the vast majority of this article is cited to tabloids, I must quick fail this article as it is a long way from meeting the GA criteria. To make the same clarification as my prior reviews: if a clear consensus emerges that these tabloids are in fact RSs on soap operas, then I’ll happily reverse my decision and someone else may nominate this article to GA again. Thank you once more for your work! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2024 (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.