Talk:Casualty series 31

Amira Zafar, Agency Nurse

Can anyone find out if the character Amira Zafar, an agency nurse portrayed in the first episode by Poppy Jhakra, is going to be part of the main cast or a guest/recurring character? She is not listed in the article, but I think she should not be put in until we know which of the two she is.GUtt01 (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Amira said in the episode she was going wherever her shift took her next, implying she's left. As far as I am aware she is not coming back. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That does not provide concrete evidence that the character is not appearing as merely a guest character. There needs to be evidence from outside the show, not within. GUtt01 (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Amira is not appearing in any future episodes, she is not credited in any upcoming episodes and if she is, she can be added back. Soaper1234 (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, understood. Editors should keep an eye on this, as a precaution. For the moment, let's add her in as a guest character for Series 31, until there is proof she will be a more involved in the series and the show in general. GUtt01 (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I have included in the overview, but I would leave it at that until she appears (if she appears) in future episodes. She definitely isn't a regular cast member though. Soaper1234 (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Episode numbering conflict

@Soaper1234: I'm a bit unsure about what to do with the episode numbering for this series now. BBC Media Centre have published today that the episode titled: "Night of the Loving Dead" will be airing on 22 October 2016[1]. On the BBC website, "Too Much Love Will Kill You" has been put down as the seventh episode of the series[2], whereas Radio Times state it to be the eighth episode[3]. So, as "Night of the Loving Dead" is airing on 22 October 2016, the BBC will class this episode as the ninth episode in the series – however, as you've probably seen in the reference for the episode title which is currently present, the image provided on Twitter by Amanda Mealing states "Night of the Loving Dead" to be episode ten. So now there's a conflict in episode numbering, do we use the BBC website as the source and change episode ten to episode nine instead, or count episode one as two episodes (which is what Radio Times have done and what was done on the article originally) and increase each episode number by one? ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@ElectrodeandtheAnode: I'd stick with BBC credits for now as they are technically a better source than RT, if anything changes further down the line then we can look at it again. Soaper1234 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Radio Times episodes

@Soaper1234: Just thought I would come here for this: I think Radio Times is not a very accurate source for episodes at this moment in time. I checked the episode "Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep" (which according to RT is S31-E45(?!)) against the BBC episode schedule and noticed that BBC states "Roadman" will be airing on 3 June 2017 instead. Of course, the BBC website is technically the most reliable source in this scenario. It might be best to double check episode titles put on Radio Times's website against the BBC website for a few weeks, just so that we ensure we are adding the correct information. (P.S - sorry about undoing the edits that you had literally just done beforehand, you had just gotten to editing the page before me.) ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@ElectrodeandtheAnode: I agree. Let's follow the BBC website as it is a more reliable source. And don't worry about undoing the actions, I did undo yours previously too! Soaper1234 - talk 15:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Episode count: 45

@Soaper1234: Hi again Soaper1234, just wondering what thought about the following: the number of episodes in Series 31 is definitely 45. This was confirmed by Cathy Shipton's Tweet. This would also mean that "Too Old for This Shift" was, in fact, overall episode numbers: 1005–06, and that it was series numbers: 1–2. This would also explain why "Night of the Loving" dead was Episode 10 (as shown in the script spoiler picture from Amanda Mealing), as all the episode numbers effectively increase by one - making Episode 9 ("Night of the Loving Dead") actually Episode 10. What I'm proposing is to change the episode numbers accordingly. If you agree, then I will go ahead and edit the series number and episode numbers ASAP, so that the series consists of 45 episodes, as opposed to the original 43. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I would say that series 31 has a total of 44 episodes since the opening was classed as one episode, not two, in several reports - most directly from the BBC. I think what has happened is that it has been classed as two for its length in production, but here we should class this series as having 44 episodes. Do any others editors have any ideas about the issue? Soaper1234 - talk 21:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I must admit this series has been baffling with its episode numbering; so much confliction. Counting the series as 44 episodes would be more straightforward, and would also make sense. In that case, I will agree with you and say that I think the episode number should be changed to 44 for this series. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at metadata from BBC promotional images of the first episode at different points in the episode from the beginning and the end it does definitely suggest that they are counted as two episodes as Soper1234 mentioned above. Plus there is also two writers.

• Programme Name: Casualty 30 - Series 31 - TX: n/a - Episode: Casualty 30 1 (No. 1)
• Programme Name: Casualty 30 - Series 31 - TX: n/a - Episode: Casualty 30 2 (No. 2)

I would suggest counting it the first episode as two to get an accurate overall episode count or if it's decided against just make a note of it. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Following these responses, I have changed the episode count to 45 episodes. In the cast section, I have left any cast appearances in the feature-length episode as stating episode 1 rather than episode 1−2 but if anyone feels it should be 1-2, please discuss. Feel free to also correct any mistakes that I have made. Soaper1234 - talk 19:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@ElectrodeandtheAnode and Kelvin 101: The BBC have updated the episode count for series 31 to 45 episodes, including "Too Old for This Shift" as one episode (episode 1), suggesting that "One" is not the series finale.... I'm not sure where to go with this one and it has been said several times that "One" is the series finale and it is incredibly frustrating to potentially have to adjust all the numbers back again! Later signed by Soaper1234 - talk 20:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Soaper1234: you forgot to sign your post, Soaper – so I didn't get your ping. Leave the episode number as it is at 45, because the BBC have stated that "One" is the series finale episode. I'd personally ignore the fact that the BBC have now put "One" as Episode 44 - they will probably amend the episode guide next Friday. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@ElectrodeandtheAnode: I would be more than happy with that. Soaper1234 - talk 20:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

According to the BBC site, not only is "One" listed as episode 44, but also literally as "Episode 44 of 45" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09021xn, further suggesting that there will be one more episode. 86.25.131.8 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

As above users have mentioned, that will most likely be amended soon. I have noticed recently that most synopsis for "One" state it is the last in the series. Soaper1234 - talk 22:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If it's any help, Soaplife says "One" marks the end of the show's 30th anniversary year and is the last episode before the show takes a two-week break. While Inside Soap has it down as the last in the series. - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

With everything indicating towards "One" being the series finale, I would prefer to have the anniversary episode as one episode, rather than two and change the overall count to 44. However, if others would prefer to leave it at 45 episodes, I would be fine with this. Soaper1234 - talk 07:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer "Too Old for This Shift" to remain as episodes 1 and 2. I say this because the production team at Casualty have included it as a two-in-one episode. Furthermore, Jeff Povey's script title page says "Episode 10" for "Night of the Loving Dead" - at the moment, Episode 10 is "Night of the Loving Dead". In addition to this, Catherine Shipton states there being 45 episodes in this series. So if we look at this from the perspective of the BBC, the actors, and the production team behind the scenes, we are effectively looking at a 45 episode span. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy enough to do this, although I think it is worth mentioning that the BBC website has changed the episode count to 44 episodes. Soaper1234 - talk 18:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"Too Old for this Shift" is in fact just one episode. The length of it does not mean it is two episodes. Each episode is 50 minutes long so if that episode was two episodes, the overall length of the episode would be 100 minutes, when in fact the episode was only 80 minutes long. Also, the BBC website for Casualty is the most reliable source to confirm that it was in fact just one episode.[4] You can see in this source that "Too Old for this Shift" is episode 1, followed by "Fall on Me" which is episode 2 and so on...Pug05 (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly what we are discussing here. A polite reminder not to change a topic title and not to adjust an article without reaching a consensus on the talk page. I would be happy to have TOFTS as solely episode one and to continue the trend, although it is something that needs to be discussed first. Also, to let you know, the special episode was actually 99 minutes long (the length of two episodes). Soaper1234 - talk 18:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The length of the episode doesn't determine how many episodes it is made up of. Multiple sources, including the BBC have said that a 'feature length special' will premiere Series 31. Feature length does not necessarily mean that it is two episodes edited together. To close this case, I'll tweet to the official Casualty twitter page asking about TOFTS.Pug05 (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pug05: Other users, such as ElectrodeandtheAnode and Kelvin 101, have the opinion that it should be classed as two episodes because from a production point of view, it has been classed as two episodes - most likely due to its length. We all know it is one feature-length episodes and nobody is denying this, although we are finding the best way of recording it, whether this be as one episode or two. Soaper1234 - talk 14:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeing that "One" is now being listed as "Episode 44 of 44", in terms of production, personally, I don't see TOFTS as two episodes, but one episode split up into two halves (i.e. 1a and 1b if you like). Also, the episode was not 80 minutes as Pug05 stated, it was more or less 100 minutes (actually 1 hour, 39 minutes), so pretty much exactly the same length as two full episodes. --86.25.131.8 (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

To add – Erika Hossington has also said Series 31 consisted of 45 episodes [on Twitter]. At the end of the day, it may say online that there are 44 episodes, however behind-the-scenes, cast and crew state that the thirty-first series consists of 45 episodes. Also, "Too Old for This Shift" was originally two separate scripts. The thirtieth anniversary was originally going to be a two-parter, until it was made feature-length. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I am reopening this discussion following a series of edits by Lego Whovian and DeclanSimons. The conclusion of this discussion was that there was 45 episodes, with the opening episode considered as one. While I appreciate your bold changes, I believe they should be talked about first. Soaper1234 - talk 19:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I corrected what looked to me like an obvious mistake; episode no. 1006 was completely missing from the episode list, yet there was no skip in the no.s in series 31. Series 31, Episode 1 was listed as no. 1005, while Series 31, Episode 2 was listed as 1007. If series 31 is considered by wikipedia to have 45 episodes then it should have said so, instead of listing 44 while skipping out a number (For example Too Old for this Shift should have been listed as episode no.s 1005<hr />1006; 1<hr />2. I would do this myself but it looks like I may need permission, otherwise my edits may be reverted. Lego Whovian (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Just spotted this now. The numbering was changed in this edit following the Good Article review. I've added a note to explain that in the official long-term numbering, episode 1-2 is episode 1005-1006, but in terms of the series, it is episode one. Soaper1234 - talk 18:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

GA nomination

@Soaper1234 and JuneGloom07: I would like to nominate this article for Good Article status rather soon, as I believe it is pretty much there. What do you two think? ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks good, and if you think it's ready, I say nominate it. - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I would agree - all looks to me. Soaper1234 - talk 07:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Just had a second look through the summaries. The beginning of episode 43 doesn't make sense: "Mickey phones him from an abandoned shed after coming off a motorbike." Who is him? Soaper1234 - talk 07:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies I completely forgot to amend that sentence after I had rearranged it. All corrected now. I will give one final check over and then nominate it ASAP. Thank you both for the quick replies. Fingers crossed it does well. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Casualty (series 31)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Apologies this review has been so long coming about. As it's been over half a year since it's nomination, I'll help out, and do this one. If anyone fancies helping out with World Snooker Championship 2018, I'd appreciate it!

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Final Note - I think I have watched maybe a couple episodes of Casualty in my life, so I barely an expert. However, articles on Wikipedia should be able to make sense to most people reading them, regardless of how well attuned they are to the subject. So, If I ask any questions, let me know what I'm missing!

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - No problems here. Other previous season articles pass GA.  Done
• It contains copyright infringements - Basic CopyVio check brings in a few issues, namely the high levels on the Wikia link, and BBC/iMDB pages. These seem to be false positives, as I can't see much copywrite infringement, but I will later check images. Done
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - No banners present. Done
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - Not a great deal of updates at all this year, so clearly no warring  Done

Links

• The categories confuse me. I know there isn't a guideline saying that "you must have X amount of categories", but being in only three categories (It could have been two if it was only shown in a calendar month) is a little odd. Looking back at previous seasons, and this seems to be a normal thing... Would Category:BBC television dramas or similar be a good place for this? EDIT: looking at this, it seems to be quite common, but there should be a cat on the network it's shown on... Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I understand what you mean. I've placed the category "Casualty (TV series) episodes" in the suggested category so that all the series are covered by this. Soaper1234 - talk 22:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• External links look fine. However, perhaps the Series 31 on BBC link should be archived (As there is basicially no information on the page anymore.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There never really has been any information on the page, but I have archived the link and included a hidden link to the archive URL. Soaper1234 - talk 22:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• No Dablinks  Done

Prose

Lede

• The lede goes into details on the series producer, and executive producer, but this information is absent from the infobox. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no parameter for producers in the infobox template. Soaper1234 - talk 22:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    • There isn't? That seems like pretty basic information to not have in an infobox (For instance, video games have a tonne of parameters for things like artists and producers.) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      • No, it's a shame as it would make sense to have one. Soaper1234 - talk 11:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oliver Kent is the executive producer until late 2016. Does this mean he produced the whole series (As I assume it was recorded before the series aired), or he only did a few episodes? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - He executively produced the whole series, so I've changed that sentence. Soaper1234 - talk 22:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• as part of the show's thirtieth anniversary celebrations.- Celebrations is a bad word. Makes it sound like this was a party episode.
  •  Done - I've removed the word. Soaper1234 - talk 23:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Using F1 as an acronym should be explicitly stated on the first mention (As a foundation doctor); with the abbreviation in brackets after. I thought for a second he was a racing driver, despite the wikilink. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 23:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• This series also featured the death of a regular character, which was revealed at the time of broadcast as Caleb Knight (Richard Winsor). - Be a little more specific. A regular character could be literally anyone. Saying he's been a reoccurring character for three seasons (Or the year of his first appearance) would be more pertinent. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 23:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• "celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of the medical drama." - The actual air date isn't the same as that of the original episode, so it isn't really like this. As this is a lede, it could simply say it commemorated thirty years of promotion, rather than say it's an actual anniversary (Which it wasn't.) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - could you see if the rewording is ok? Soaper1234 - talk 23:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• "Rosie Marcel, who plays Jac Naylor, Guy Henry, who plays Henrik Hanssen, and Alex Walkinshaw, who plays Adrian Fletcher, all making guest appearances." - Perhaps place the characters first, with the actors names in brackets. As far as I know that's what the MOS says for film and television plots (As the characters appear, not the actors.) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 23:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• "The episode featured the hospital, and main characters lives, in danger when an air ambulance crashed in the emergency department car park" - Wording. Doesn't quite make sense. Should read "The episode features both the main characters lives, and the hospital itself in danger when..." Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 23:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• "Fans "demanded the show won an award" after the episode had aired, while Daily Mirror reporter Sharon Marshall described the anniversary as a "pitch-perfect episode mixing gore, heartache, drama and nostalgia". Despite this, the episode did receive criticism from Midlands Air Ambulance charity, who branded the plot as "insensitive"." - As this article has no reception section, and isn't an article on the episode itself, this should be omitted, as it's not sourced elsewhere on this particular article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't quite understand this point as there is a reception section in the article, which says a lot of this. See #Reception for more. I've also changed the following reception bit around a bit too. - Soaper1234 - talk 23:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Lede's shouldn't really have direct quotes like this. They should summarize. Something more general should be in the lede, simply that the first episode received praise from critics and fans. Would be poor WP:WEIGHT to include specific reviews. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I've tidied the lede a bit (specifically the reception sentences). How does it look? - Soaper1234 - talk 11:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Wikilink longlisted, as it isn't as obvious as "shortlisted". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 23:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Cast

Overview

• "Lisa "Duffy" Duffin, who appeared in the show on-off since its inception, returned in the opening episode of the series" - On-off is quite slangy. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Arthur made his final appearance in episode 10. - Considering the previous paragraph has thrown loads of names at the reader, it's difficult to know who Arthur is, especially with no context. Perhaps a little more information as to what the character did in order to leave the show is warranted. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - if you wouldn't checking this out please? Soaper1234 - talk 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• "It was announced on 7 February 2017 that the show had filmed a funeral for a regular character.[12] Episode 34 featured the death of Cal Knight (Winsor) after he was stabbed by a white supremacist who blamed Ethan for his father's death." - Merge sentences for flow.
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• "Ian Bleasdale also reprised the role of Josh Griffiths, one of the show's longest-serving characters, but for the entirety of the episode" - remove "but", seems misplaced. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• "Following the cliffhanger at end of the previous series" - Considering this doesn't go into details, and isn't a plot section, should be removed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• EastEnders "legend" Pam St. Clement was cast as "surly" patient Sally Hodge who appeared in the feature-length episode. - Despite the source saying she's a legend, and using the speech marks, it should probably be removed as non-neccesary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• St. Clement's return to the role was announced on 12 December 2016,[38] with Hossington later confirming she would return for a guest appearance in March.[41] St. Clement appeared in episode 27. - Merge these sentences again. Was clearly written as the series was broadcast, but a simple sentence seems pointless, when you can say with Hossington later confirming she would return for a guest appearance in March, and later appeared in episode 27. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - could you check how the improvement is please? Soaper1234 - talk 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• - Are the quotes really necessary? This is a section on the casting, not particurly a commentary on what the cast thought of the casting, unless it was important. Seems quite filler. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you expand on where you mean please? - Soaper1234 - talk 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • - Specifically this paragraph:

On 16 March 2017, it was announced that Roy Ellisson (John Killoran) and Denise Ellisson (Lucy Benjamin) would be reintroduced in April, alongside their sons Scott Ellisson (Will Austin) and Mickey Ellisson (Mitch Hewer). Hewer said, "I'm very excited for people to meet Mickey and for them to feel the difficulties that he endures in his life". Harper commented, "We met Mickey's parents in 2015, but don't judge a book by its cover. Mickey isn't necessarily cut from the same cloth in his dealings with the Casualty regulars and there will be absolutely explosive consequences."

•  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 11:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• as the actual cast list is only a list, it's hard to critique, but what exactly sets an actor as being a "guest character", rather than an extra? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Funnily enough, we have recently discussed this at the talk page of Casualty (series 33). Guest characters tend to be separated into a few categories:
    • Crossover characters (characters who appear from Holby City such as Mo Effanga, Ric Griffin, Jac Naylor).
    • Past characters who guest star (including the 9 cast members who made guest appearances/cameos in the special episode, such as Lenny Lyons, Josh Griffiths, Tess Bateman, as well as other past characters like Ben "Lofty" Chiltern and Ryan Johnson)
    • Characters who appear multiple times in the series (these characters commonly serve a key purpose in the stories, such as Roy Ellisson, Jackie Munroe and Archie Grayling)
  • So the above are guest characters, whereas extras will often be the one-off appearances ("patient of the week" characters) and those who float around in the background. I hope that made sense and thank you for asking the question! - Soaper1234 - talk 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • • It does for me now you have explained it... But I'm not sure that a reader would be able to realise the differences without it being explained at all in the article... I suggest it may be prudent to have a single line (Or, better a footnote) that explains the clasification. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
        •  Done - I was going to add the note in the guest characters column, but it doesn't work so I've added it to the overview. What are your thoughts on its position? Soaper1234 - talk 11:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
          • See this edit. I prefer this to be above the actual list; otherwise it's quite disjointed, and you may feel the need to search for information. See what you think of the wording Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
            •  Done - I'm happy with that change. Soaper1234 - talk 14:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Production

• Only a little thing but "Oliver Kent continued his role as executive producer,[22] while Erika Hossington remained as the series producer.[41]" - Shouldn't that read "whilst"? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 14:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• "Casualty: The Movie" - If this is an unofficial nickname taken from a source, it should be speeched marked, no? Italics are for official names. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 14:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• She described the episode as "very, very special and unique" - Cut down this to simply "special and unique". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 14:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Wikilink one take. - I think we may be grasping at straws with regard to copyright, by actually using a quote here. Simply where it was announced that the episode will be shot in a single take would be sufficient. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 14:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Same with a few parts of this article. There are tonnes of quotes when they simply aren't needed. Wikipedia is a summary. If someone says they have used 40 microphones, then say that; a direct quote is not necessary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 14:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• On 7 February 2017, Digital Spy revealed that a regular character would be killed off in a "shock storyline twist" - This isn't a production sentence. If you wanted to use it, you could state it somewhere else, or regarding the production of keeping spoilers away from the press. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - I've removed the sentence. Shouldn't be there and I think it is actually in the overview section. Soaper1234 - talk 14:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Reception

• My biggest gripe about this section is the order in which this is displayed. It starts with viewership figures, then how the fans reacted, and then critical acclaim. Rightfully, awards are last, but this could easily be it's own subsection. Most reception sections I've read see critical response first, before any important fan response, then viewership. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - I've gone ratings, awards then critical response. What are your thoughts on this? I've also added some more prose that you might want to check. Soaper1234 - talk 21:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Other nominations in the category include EastEnders, Emmerdale and Hollyoaks.[68] Casualty missed out on the award, with Emmerdale winning instead. - Floaty text - Simply reading that there were three nominees, with Emmerdale winning is sufficient. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 21:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• The episode synopsis for "five days", can we turn that into prose? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 21:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Notes & References

• References aren't archived (So I did it myself) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I'm not actually sure how to archive in the manner that you did. Would you be able to let me know how to do this? Soaper1234 - talk 21:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Sure, it's a script. I'll send you the details through when I'm next at my PC. But you can do it manually if you check the link in the edit summary. I'm a big fan of some scripts, things like set dates as dmy or use British English etc. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• ref 52 is from Twitter, but all it sources is the full list of episodes for the series. This should be changed to a more reliable source (not that Twitter can't be used for sourcing, but it can easily be sourced better elsewhere) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We did occur a bit of an issue with this and it was discussed at the article's talk page. The official website says there is 44 episodes, but everything in production of the show says 45 episodes. That is the reason why actress Cathy Shipton's tweet is the source, although the tweet from Erika Hossington (the series producer) may be better. Soaper1234 - talk 21:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • If the official source says it's 44, it's 44, (suggesting the first two episodes are considered a joint episode). A tweet from a staff member (that isn't a press release) isn't going to overweight this. I suggest this should be changed to mirror the official sources, as we shouldn't pick and choose which sources we use for things such as this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      •  Done - I've changed the numbers to 44 episodes and changed the source. Soaper1234 - talk 22:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• ref 74 - "User must select "BBC1" in the Channel field and then select the appropriate year, month and week to retrieve the figure for each episode" - Is this necessary? Surely we simply only need to list where the source came from, not how to find the information? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe this is included to make it easier for the user to know where to find the information as it is not immediately present at the source. Soaper1234 - talk 21:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not that it will effect any GA nom, but I always ignore such things. If it's important to show where the figures are from, you should <!-- --> hide the text. All the reader needs is the source and the figures. Not a big deal mind. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 22:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• ref 56 could easily be split into three sources, and still not be an issue with WP:REFBOMB. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - two of the sources weren't actually needed. Soaper1234 - talk 21:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Article is well written.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Article is well sourced for an article on a season.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers a lot of information for this particular season, without going into others.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Some NPOV issues have since been resolved.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article has been on the GA shelf for a year, and hasn't been vandalised once.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Article only uses Wiki Commons images, so no issues.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I am placing this review on hold, for the above to be seen through and discussed ElectrodeandtheAnode. It's a quality article, and I'm a nit-picker, but there are a few things here that would stop me from passing through a WP:GA. Please let me know if you need anything better explained, or if I'm being a bit silly with any of the points above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe I have addressed all the issues above (either with action in the article or a response). Thank you ever so much for doing the review Lee Vilenski. It's great to see it once step closer to a review. Soaper1234 - talk 21:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your time. I'll leave this open for a couple days so the original nominator can feedback with this one (would be a bit unfair as this GA has been open for some time to close it before then).

I will give it another full read after this, and give it a review and say yey or nay. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Brilliant. Thank you again for the effort you've put into this. Soaper1234 - talk 22:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Lee Vilenski and Soaper1234: My sincerest apologies Soaper1234 that I have not contributed to the improvements which were requested by the reviewer. As you know, I am usually very prompt in responding to queries in GA nominations as I am incredibly passionate about getting GA status articles. I am truly gutted that time was not on my side to help improve the article, but I cannot thank you enough for the time you have invested in this article and the changes you have made to improve it. I have read over it once more and I am satisfied with the feedback and improvements that have been made. Also a HUGE thank you Lee Vilenski for reviewing this article. I am happy for you to read over it again, if there are any more queries, please let us know! ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• No worries. I don't have time today, and I don't excessively wiki on the weekend, so it'll most likely be Monday. Feel free to update before that time. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• @ElectrodeandtheAnode: Don't be daft! I've quite enjoyed being able to get stuck into a project like this again. If anything, I'm sorry I ploughed through it all without letting you have a chance to get involved. As long as you're happy with the amendments I've made then I'd be happy with this review. Soaper1234 - talk 11:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• So long as you are both in agreement. I'll have a read through now. I've done a couple edits to the article for things like consistency in dates, I hope you don't mind. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Lee Vilenski: Thank you ever so, so much for your review. I am absolutely thrilled our hard work has payed off and we have another good article for the Holbyverse! I wish you all the best. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Lee Vilenski: Thank you very much. You've been incredibly helpful during this whole process. All the best, Soaper1234 - talk 12:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• No problem. You were great at responding which I appreciate. If you have any time, please review articles, as there aren't enough people doing them, especially World Snooker Championship 2018, which is one of mine! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Lee Vilenski: I've always fancied reviewing an article for GA so I might have to give a go. Soaper1234 - talk 20:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)