Talk:Bianca Jackson

Name

Was thinking, did Bianca definitely change her name after divorcing Ricky? Liam is called Butcher so i thought she may have kept the name. But i can't remember myself, too young too remember really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparhelda (talk • contribs)

When she was seen in 2002, after divorcing Ricky, she enrolled at college under the name of Jackson. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

K. Never saw the spin-off myself. They have her listed as 'Bianca Butcher' on the BBC eastenders website for some reason -Sparhelda

That's probably because she was Butcher when she left the main serial. Also, they're not that good, the Wikipedia articles on EastEnders provide a much better source of information than the official site! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, have to agree there. We're the best! -Sparhelda

In the light of her recent marriage I'm bringing this up again - Shouldn't the name be reverted back to Butcher? She was known as Butcher for over 10 years until her return, she's already widely recognised under that name and will be using it for the forseeable future too. Ooh, Fruity (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering she's only just married I'd keep it as Jackson for now, I certainly think of her as Bianca Jackson still. I Googled both names and "Bianca Jackson" far outnumbers "Bianca Butcher" by about 24:1. anemoneprojectors talk 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering if it's time to bring up again that maybe Bianca should have her page move from Jackson to Butcher? I think she is more commonly known as Butcher these days, rather than Jackson. 81.20.179.232 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, she should not. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No need to be obtuse and rude AP, how about explaining your opinions? No, I don't think Bianca should be changed to Butcher yet, although it's probably more even now than before, she is still known slightly more as a Jackson in my opinion, so should stay with that name. Bleaney (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NAT B2.jpg

Image:NAT B2.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 04:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ricky Bianca 2002.jpg

Image:Ricky Bianca 2002.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 23:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nat andB.jpg

Image:Nat andB.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Patsy speaks about EastEnders return ^anemone│_projectors 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

EastEnders - Patsy Palmer not bothered by Bianca ^anemone│_projectors 22:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Exclusive first pic of Ricky and Bianca back in EastEnders... not so much. ^anemone│_projectors 15:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bianca back on the Square – Patsy Palmer returns to EastEnders -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

RICKAAY SICKIE - commentary on how Ricky and Bianca's characters have changed by Sid Owen and Patsy Palmer. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Palmer admits she's tired of Ricky cry - it might be repetition but good to include everything we can find. ^anemone│_projectors 12:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Meet Patsy Palmer...Gungadin 18:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• 'EastEnders' star expects Bianca changes –AnemoneProjectors– 00:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Bianca's 2012 return after her second stint in prison –AnemoneProjectors– 13:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• an interview about her return –AnemoneProjectors– 20:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• There's also this one! –AnemoneProjectors– 21:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

How many 'a's in 'Rickaaaaaay!'?

Can we verify it's spelt with six 'a's? :P -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping this is a joke, but according to this BBC source, it's 7 'a's [1] check the caption under the wdding pic. Gungadin 17:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke, but maybe we should change it to seven, so we can back up the spelling with a source! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

BBC News is actually a very reliable source, so I think it's safe to go with 7. But you MUST cite the source!!! That's very VERY VERY important!!!!!!!! ;) ^anemone│_projectors 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone's had too much fizzy pop... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Max Branning spiked my drink. ^anemone│_projectors 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New image

Yoo hoo! Trampikey are u around?? I just took a cap of B from the new advert for her return. Shall I put it on, even tho she's not back looking like that on-screen yet?

Oh, I will, but we can always revert if you think we should.Gungadin 19:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it, but I think we should include the previous image somewhere as well as it illustrates B in the 90s. Did you get a cap of Rickaaaaaaay too? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And it should be replaced with a picture from the actual serial as soon as it can be :) (The trailer is brilliant!) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, shame we have to replace it, cos for some reason that image is better quality than they shoot regular episodes of EE in. Must be filmed in a different way. I have a screenie of B from Jan 1994 we could use for the early shot. once I flesh out the OOU, i'll uplaod. or this one [2] is from late 1994, or early 1995, i think. It was around the time when Bianca was conning David and her mum to pay the rent for her new flat, and she was pocketing all the money :) Gungadin 00:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That one is 2002 [3] Gungadin 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the adverts are filmed with different film or something... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh forgot to say, I did get a cap of Ricky, but it's not so good. his face is all darkened, but they lit Bianca's up.Or maybe it's just her pale skin :) Gungadin 01:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

GA

If we source the plot, do you think we could get GA with this one? Gungadin 00:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I sourced the plot. It's quite small compared to the OOU stuff. Do you think we should nominate it ? Gungadin 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want, but I don't want to have to drastically change it like we had to do with Pauline. I can't be arsed with all that stress again... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Me either, but it's not FA, so it wont be nearly as bad as Pauline. It's just one reviewer on GA.Gungadin 18:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's alright then! :) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when?

Did Bianca return to the square between the spin off and now I noted it mentioned on the Liam article? 172.142.103.236 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

She didn't. She was last seen in Walford in 1999.Gungadin 23:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

3 month pregnancy?

This can't be right... "in September 1998 Bianca fell pregnant for a second time. She gave birth to baby Liam on Christmas Day in The Queen Vic". -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha well spotted. I removed "September". AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Liam was premature, around seven months I think, so she would have gotten pregnant about May, but I don't think there is a source anywhere so maybe just put early 1998? Alex250P (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say when she fell pregnant, though maybe if Liam was premature then she didn't know she was pregnant until September. Just a guess. Just say that Liam was born at Christmas, and if he was premature, then say that. Liam's page says he was premature. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

ok then.--Woodhouse2000 (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

huh? AnemoneProjectors 16:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 16:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No problems here.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems here

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   I imagine would be a problem at times since she is still a regular character, but no recent problems.

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Having read through the article, I'd say it's very close to GA but there are a few issues to be addressed. I'll go through the article by GA criterion and by section, noting any issues I have found.

issues dealt with

===Prose/MoS=== Lead fictional character and soap opera don't need to be linked (see WP:OVERLINK for more on linking)  Done It would be nice to know who Diederick Santer is, perhaps simply by prefacing his name with "producer"  Done "Bianca has been featured in numerous high profile storylines" - "numerous" is not necessary here  Done (also removed "high profile" as it seems inherently POV) "...revelation of her adoptive daughter Whitney Dean...", could you give Whitney's age here, or state that she was a minor, to make it clear that Tony's subsequent arrest is in relation to her  Done Background Is there any need to have "historic" in quotes?  Done (kept the quotes, but rephrased to make clear that it is a quote) Casting "Palmer's casting has been described as an "accident"..." - who has described it as that?  Done "Anna Scher theatre school" - this doesn't quite match the name of the place, which is Anna Scher Theatre  Done Personality "The way the character was portrayed, as a "person who wouldn't take nonsense from anyone", has led James Rampton..." - tenses are mixed here. I would suggest either The way the character is portrayed [...] has led James Rampton..., The way the character has been portrayed [...] has led James Rampton... or The way the character was portrayed [...] led James Rampton...  Done "..."girl power", a cultural phenomenon of the mid-late 1990s, which is also linked to third-wave feminism." - is the link of girl power to third wave feminism attributed to Rampton? Otherwise, I'd suggest it's a little dubious. I know that this is mentioned in the article for girl power, but the link to feminism has been disputed with many people saying "gorl powers"'s got nothing to do with feminism. It could be explored at the girl power article, but I think to keep it neutral and free from OR, you would need to go into too much detail here, that's not really relevant to Bianca. So, if it's not part of the Rampton quote, I'd lose the mention of third wave feminism.  Done (The link isn't made by Rampton, and even just going through the article fixing the refs, without yet having read your section-specific commentary, this particular link struck me as rather extraneous, so removed.) "However, it has also been noted,..." - this is a bit vague. Noted by whom?  Done (Changed to: "However, Rampton also noted") Character development "Bianca was featured in various high profile storylines [...] which included numerous... " - again, "various" and "numerous" are vague and redundant. Instead, try something like In her first six years in the soap, Bianca's storylines included affairs, feuds, bereavements, family problems, abortion, and a problematic marriage to Ricky Butcher. Although, perhaps "family problems" is a bit vague, too.  Done (Re-worded per your suggestion, with the omission of "family problems", as they generally fall under 'affairs', 'feuds' etc anyway.) "Rickaaaaaaay!" "It has been suggested that Bianca's catchphrase..." - another vague unsupported attribution - see WP:WEASEL for more info on this.  Done (Changed to: "Rampton has suggested that Bianca's catchphrase...") In this sentence, you have spaced emdashes. According to MOS:EMDASH, emdashes should not be spaced. This happens several times through the article, I'll try to mention them all, but please check to make sure you get them all.  Done (Used CTRL+F to ensure emdashes were unspaced throughout the whole article) "...Ricky supported Bianca through a personal crisis — the revelation ..." - spaced emdash needs fixing  Done ""A couple like Ricky and Bianca... can have constantly sniped at each other for several episodes" - here, and elsewhere throughout the article, there are ellipses that aren't clear whether they are present in the source text, or marking omissions. If you are making the omissions, please mark them with square brackets like: "A couple like Ricky and Bianca [...] can have constantly sniped at each other for several episodes". This happens several times, so they all need to be fixed.  Done "...in April 1997 22 million viewers tuned in to see them marry on-screen..." - I don't think you need to say "on-screen"; that's kind of obvious from the fact that you're talking about the characters, not the actors.  Done "one of the biggest soap audiences ever." - do we know if that is just in the UK, or internationally? It's not made clear in the source article, which states: "Bianca's marriage to Ricky Butcher last year drew one of the biggest soap audiences ever with an audience of more than 22 million." Frickative 20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I wonder if perhaps it should be as a quote then, what do you think? I'm worried that its; a bit ambiguous as a straight statement. I think you're right - for clarity's sake I've reworded as: "The BBC has reported that Bianca and Ricky's on-off romance "captivated millions of fans", and in April 1997 attracted "one of the biggest soap audiences ever", with 22 million viewers tuning in to see them marry". Frickative 01:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC) "The Daily Mail branded Ricky and Bianca "EastEnders' most popular couple" - can we have a date for that? Could be relevant since they are still current, and presumably will not necessarily be the most popular couple for ever.  Done (Prefaced: "In 2008, the Daily Mail branded...") "...and they have also been described as "iconic"." - who has described them as that? A blog called The New Pink that I've never encountered before, and that doesn't really seem to be a reliable source. I'll have a scout about and see if I can find anything better. Frickative 20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I've gone ahead and removed this half-sentence entirely. The source isn't used for any editorial commentary any more, and its single use is now just to show the Ricky/Bianca return trailer. Frickative 01:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC) "The characters were shown to reconcile later in the year" - you haven't said that they broke up, which would be nice for clarity. Also, I don't think you need "were shown to"; it's an in-universe sentence, so it's fine to say "the characters reconciled". Spina bifida "After falling pregnant with Ricky's baby..." - "falling pregnant" is a colloquialism, so shouldn't be used here. A good proportion of readers won't know the expression, and it also sounds informal. (It's used several times in this article, so needs to be checked.)  Done (Changed to just 'becoming pregnant', though I couldn't find it used anywhere else in the article - perhaps changed in earlier revisions without my noticing.) There was a "fell pregnant" but I've changed it.--BelovedFreak 14:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC) "Bianca agonised about whether to have an abortion" → Bianca agonised about whether or not to have an abortion  Done "...but eventually decided to terminate her pregnancy at 20 weeks, following the diagnosis." - is "following the diagnosis" necessary here? Obviously it would have been some time after the diagnosis, but presumably it was diagnosis, then agonising over decision, then abortion. This sentence implies agonising over decision, then diagnosis, then abortion.  Done (You're quite right, removed.) Link abortion (if you think it's necessary) at the first mention rather than the following sentence  Done "As a result, Palmer was nominated ..." - "as a result" is not necessary  Done "...Palmer was nominated ..." - we have another spaced emdash in this sentence.  Done "Natasha was mentioned in episode in 2009..." - I'm not sure that this is hugely relevant to the story, seems a bit trivial here. What do you think?  Done (Definitely trivial and not really relevant to the focus of the section, so removed.) "...a storyline about spina bifida and hydrocephalus, a developmental birth defect resulting in an incompletely formed spinal cord..." - that's two defects presumably, and the description only applies to spina bifida, not hydrocephalus. Exit: 1999 "...causing an STD scare..." - could you link STD to sexually transmitted disease, and preferably spell it out, since some readers won't know the phrase, only knowing VD (in other countries), or in the case of some younger people, STI.  Done "However, in November 1998..." - "however" is not really necessary here.  Done "Martine McCutcheon and Ross Kemp (Grant and Tiffany Mitchell)" - you need to switch either the character names or the actor names so that it doesn't look like Grant is played by McCutcheon and Tiffany by Kemp.  Done (Changed to just 'McCutcheon and Kemp' as both they and their characters were already mentioned earlier in the paragraph) "Bianca left the serial on a train for Manchester..." Bianca didn't leave EastEnders, Palmer did. Since the rest of the sentence is in-universe, try Bianca left Walford or Bianca left Albert Square  Done Spin-off: 2002 "...the BBC announced that Patsy Palmer and Sid Owen were reprising their roles as Bianca and Ricky..." → ...the BBC announced that Patsy Palmer and Sid Owen would reprise their roles as Bianca and Ricky...  Done Return: 2008 "However, it was announced on 29 October 2007..." - I'm not sure you should be starting the section with "however". What about something like Despite Palmer's earlier reservations, it was announced on 29 October 2007 that she would be...  Done "...despite previously saying she would never return to the show as it was "rubbish"" - rather than being at the end of this sentence, I think it would look better if you either start off this section with her 2005 comments, or even mention them at the end of the previous one, since they follow on from her earlier comments.  Done (Moved to end of last section) "...it was announced that Sid Owen was also be returning to the show..." - something's gone a bit wrong with that sentence.  Done (Changed to "would also be returning...") you don't need to link public house  Done Righteous Brothers should be The Righteous Brothers  Done "The promo uses the tag line..." - "promo" is an abbreviation, please use the whole word  Done Could do with a brief explanation of Cathy Come Home, in square brackets, maybe something like "Perhaps the storyline is meant to be an updated version of [1966 BBC drama] Cathy Come Home – yet if so... Relationship with Tony King; paedophilia "had been struck by a woman and child at a bus stop with nowhere to go..." → had been struck by a scene of a woman and child at a bus stop with nowhere to go or had been struck by an image of a woman and child at a bus stop with nowhere to go  Done "he seemed to have few friends or family..."" - you don't need this ellipsis at the end, just put the end quote marks and put a full stop outside the quotes.  Done "However, paedophilia as a storyline had been pitched before..." - is there a rough date for this previous pitch? No, the source article just says: "The issue had, in fact, come up before, and been scuppered by just such questions. "We knew," Santer says, "that something like 16% of under-16s have been sexually abused at some point, but if you can't find a story, it's an issue that sits there, dead, on the show." Given the difficulty of the subject, it was not a risk they were then willing to take." Frickative 17:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Ok, that's fine. Might be an interesting point to follow up on if the article's developed further.--BelovedFreak 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC) "The storyline has been dubbed as..." - dubbed by whom? It's not really clear. The Daily Mail source says: "Viewers have hit out at what has been dubbed the most controversial story-line on the show ever". I've reworded the sentence as: "According to the Daily Mail, the storyline has been dubbed as the "most controversial story-line on the show ever". Does that work? Frickative 17:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Yep Reunion with Ricky Butcher "In November 2009 it was announced that coinciding with the return of her on-screen family and the 25th anniversary of EastEnders, Bianca and Ricky remarried in February 2010." - the tense at the beginning of the sentence doesn't match the end, also it couldn't be announced in November that they remarried in February.  Done (Changed to "Bianca and Ricky would remarry in February 2010") 1993–99 "...he dumps her..." - a bit informal  Done (Changed to "he breaks up with her") "She and David flirt with each other,..." - spaced emdashes in this sentence  Done No need to link Christmas Day  Done "helped by her enemy Grant Mitchell —" - spaced emdash  Done "However, after finding an old photo of Bianca and Dan together..." - no need for this "however", and no need to link photo  Done "In the Summer of 1999..." - summer doesn't need a capital letter, but it's actually better not to use seasons where possible bearing in mind that in the southern hemisphere, our summer is their winter, and many regions of the world don't have four seasons anyway. It's less confusing to use specific months, or if that's not possible, maybe, "towards the middle of 1999".  Done (Changed to "in mid-1999...", though perhaps an editor more familiar with the storyline can be more specific) "Bianca has a short relationship with Richard Cole in 1994..." - perhaps state upfront that he's an older man When it says that Carol tells David the truth, could you make it clear that Bianca doesn't find out at this point. "Natalie later sets it up..." - this whole sentence is a little awkward "...a pre-natal scan confirms that the unborn child is affected with spina bifida." - don't they also find out that the baby had hydrocephalus? 2002–07 It looks a bit awkward with the image pushing the subheading out of the way - perhaps move the image to the right (the above one could be moved to the left if you wish to preserve symmetry.) "Tony grooms 12-year old Whitney .." - "grooms" can be linked to child grooming  Done 2008— "...his affair with Whitney, who is now too adult for him" - sounds a little awkward. Maybe something like ...his affair with Whitney, whom he is no longer attracted to.  Done "Whitney confesses" - makes it sound like she's been doing something wrong - remember this is the underage victim of a paedophile.  Done (Changed to: "Whitney tells a disbelieving Bianca of their relationship") "Following a DNA test..." - consider linking to Parental testing  Done Reception "...people love a stroppy girl" - this is too informal to use unquoted.  Done "Palmer claimed that members of the public..." - "claimed" makes it sound like she might be lying. "said" is fine.  Done "I sometimes think I should go back [to EastEnders] for everyone else's sake." - Eastenders should be in italics here.  Done "Conversely, when the character departed the serial ..." - "conversely" is not necessary  Done "Palmer's portrayal of Bianca earned her a nomination..." - more spaced emdashes in this sentence  Done "Other media sources branded them two of..." - the previous sentence mentions the show's producer, I don't think he counts as another media source, in the same group as critics.  Done (Changed this bit to: "Reuters branded them two of "the most popular characters on the soap".", removing the "iconic couple" bit because I don't think The New Pink website is a particularly good source.) In popular culture and other media "The character was also spoofed..." - no need for "also"; the previous paragraph doesn't mention spoofs  Done no need to link "black"  Done "Notably, Jacob had previously appeared..." - no need to say "notably" - if it wasn't notable, you wouldn't be mentioning it!  Done References/sources/citations Casting I don't think you need a citation for the fact that Patsy Palmer got the part, this is probably the most easily verifiable facts in the article.  Done On the other hand, could do with a citation for the fact that she was 21 at the time.  Done Return: 2008 "It was said that Bianca would return "as a single mother with a horde of children in tow"" - this has a citation, but the source does not say anything about this. the source is talking about her never returning to Eastenders. As a result, this whole paragraph is unsourced and desperately needs citing, especially as there are quotes.  Done I think this was another mix up with references. There definitely did used to be a Digital Spy article covering all of this paragraph, but I can't for the life of me find it. I've substituted in a reference from the Daily Mirror which says much the same, and tweaked the wording accordingly. Frickative 23:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Images Exit: 1999 I'm not sure that this picture of Bianca, Carol and Dan can really be justified under fair use. It seems purely decorative to me.  Done 2002–07 Having mentioned moving the image of Ricky and Bianca, I'm not sure that this one qualifies under fair use either, as it doesn't seem particularly vital to the article.  Done References References/citation format in detail I feel that all of the dates in the references would be better in Day-month-year style, it fits with the style used in the article, and is less confusing than yyyy--mm--dd (especially to non-US readers). This is a suggestion, but not a GA requirement.  Done Basically, all the citations need to be filled out with all available info regarding publication dates, publishers, authors etc. I'll go through some of these giving suggestions, but they all need to be checked.  Done Per WP:ALLCAPS, all titles in sources should be converted into "Start case"  Done ("Palmer making EastEnders comeback" - citation template is missing the "work" parameter, which should be BBC News. Type it like this: ''[[BBC News]]'' to counteract the italics that is applied to the "work" field.  Done ("Owen to join..") - formatting is inconsistent & would benefit from citation template. BBC news should have a capital "N" and should not be in italics. The publisher is BBC. Instead of "URL last accessed" it should say "Retrieved" for consistency (achieved by using the template). It needs a publication date.  Done (Colin Brake) - needs page numbers for each citation (Emma Bunton bio) - what is Yuddy.com and what makes it reliable? think you may need a better source for this.  Done (Replaced with an article from the Liverpool Daily Post. It's behind a paywall at Highbeam, so I've included the pertinent extract using the 'quote' parameter.) - publisher is Guardian Media Group  Done (Hester Lacey interview) - this link is dead  Done ("EastEnders – Patsy Palmer not bothered...") link is dead  Done (Removed this bit entirely, as the website has closed down and wasn't a particularly esteemed publication anyway) ("Fiesty Bianca") - Reuters should not be in italics. The second use of this reference (after the sentence "Other media sources branded them two of..." - doesn't seem to back up this sentence in any way.  Done (The references here had been muddled up, and the second use should have been of the Reuters article on Sid Owen's return instead. Fixed now.) ("I'd give silly cow...") - needs author & publisher (Trinity Mirror); the work is Daily Mirror  Done (I've changed all but one instance of The Mirror to Daily Mirror, but left one from 1997 when the masthead of the paper was The Mirror.) ("Is there life...") - publisher is Independent Print Limited  Done ("Getting Schticky...") - what's the deal with this? Who publishes it? It's fictional, does it have anything to do with the BBC? In short: is it reliable? I've taken issue with the use of the Walford Gazette as a reliable source in the past, as I think it falls under WP:SPS. It's used three times in this article, so does anyone have a different stance on it? I'm happier using it for interviews with the cast than for editorial content, as it's used in the other two instances here, though. Frickative 20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC) ("Ricky to rejoin Bianca..."), Reuters shouldn't be in italics, needs a publication date  Done ("Palmer admits..."), work is Daily Mirror, needs author, publication date & publisher  Done ("Will flour power...") - link is dead  Done (It was showing as dead on checklinks but actually worked. The host site was dubious, though, so I've linked to a different version.) ("Hello and a sad goodbye") - link is dead  Done ("Bianca Butcher") - link is dead  Done ("Vote now") - this link has changed This link seems to go to "news from albert square" which only mentions the 2010 Bubble Awards. Sorry, marked this one as 'done' by accident. I actually marked it as a deadlink in the article, which I'll try and fix when the rest of the references are sorted. Frickative 17:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Prose/MoS

Lead

• To comply with the manual of style, specifically WP:LEAD, the lead section needs to adequately summarise the rest of the article, which I don't feel that it does at the moment.

"Rickaaaaaaay!"

• "Palmer explained that it was actually Ross, as a DJ, who had originally inspired the catchphrase" - can you expand on this at all? How did he initiate a catchphrase in a soap he has nothing to do with? My interest was piqued, so it'd be nice to follow through & explain how this happened

Spina bifida

• "In scenes shown after the abortion, ..." - this sentence is a little unwieldy. "after the birth" isn't necessary; it wouldn't have been beforehand would it? Why was Ricky unable to do it? Was it the emotional stress of the situation? Please make that clear. Perhaps try Bianca and Ricky were given the opportunity to see and hold their dead daughter, who they named Natasha. Ricky [insert clearer bit here about him being unable to hold her] but Bianca later told him their baby had been perfect. ← of course, if she specifically said "my baby", then keep it as "her baby", but try something like that.
• "the characters came to terms with what they had done" - doesn't sound 100% neutral; always tricky when writing about things like abortion on Wikipedia, but "what they had done" makes them sound culpable. Try and make it a bit more neutral like "the experience" or something. If there were specific issues of them / her feeling guilty, then you could mention that.
• "Bianca's decision to abort reportedly angered a proportion of viewers," - "reportedly" - again, this is unsupported attribution. Who reported it? And, how many is "a proportion" of viewers? A majority? Minority?
• "However, many were "moved" by the storyline," - again, do we have any idea of the numbers? It's inevitable that some will like the storyline, and some won't, so it would be interesting to know if it was received well or badly overall.

Reunion with Ricky Butcher

• "It features Tiffany arranging a comeback for Bianca's family..." - is this little Tiffany? How was she arranging a comeback? By family, do you mean her mother & siblings?
  • This might not need changing by the way, might just be me being stupid. just wondered if it was the ghost of Tiffany Mitchell or something, not knowing anything about the spinoff DVD.--BelovedFreak 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture and other media

• Was Carmel Jackson any relation to Bianca's family? Either way, might be worth clarifying Done

References/sources/citations

Reception

• "The males regarded Bianca as a "saucy cow", with implications of unacceptable assertiveness in women." - is this attributable to Barker? If so, could we have a citation there, because otherwise it looks like original research Done

I'll put the article on hold for a week to allow editors to address the issues. It seems like a lot, but many of these issues are "cosmetic" WP:MOS-related and should be sorted quite easily. If these issues are addressed, I will need to look over it again. Please ask if you have any questions.--BelovedFreak 13:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for such a thorough review! It's very helpful, and while there are quite a lot of fixes needed, I'm confident that we can have it up to scratch within a week. I've made a start on the changes, and noted off what's been done so far. If anyone from the EastEnders WikiProject has any comments on the reliability of The New Pink or Walford Gazette, please do share :) Frickative 20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you've fixed quite a few things already, I'll try and go through what you've done tomorrow, when I'm a bit more awake. Would you like me to go through the remainder of the references pointing out the specific issues, or do you think you can check them against the examples of the first 15 or so? I'm more than happy to do so if you wish. I'll also come up with a more specific suggestion for expanding the lead tomorrow, as I see I left that hanging a bit! :)--BelovedFreak 20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the Walford Gazette source should be ok because it's an actual interview with the actor. Surely words from the actor's mouth are reliable wherever they are published? Walford Gazette isn't run by the BBC, but its owner recently brought out a book featuring several of his interviews. AnemoneProjectors 21:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks BelovedFreak! Fixing the refs and lead should be okay, I think the reason there's so many issues is that a lot of the article was put together years ago, before use of citation templates was so standard. Anemone - I do think the interview is okay (I often use interviews from the Holby Gazette for Holby articles) - I just didn't realise that the other two uses were also interviews. I thought they were regular editorial pieces, but they're not :) Frickative 22:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and I suppose it's been an article that's been edited by many different users over time, which also causes problems. I think it's in pretty good shape though, and definitely in sight of GA. I'm happy with the Walford Gazette, unless anyone else has other concerns with it in the meantime.--BelovedFreak 23:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to close this review now. Some really great work done by User:Frickative, but unfortunately there are still some issues outstanding. It's been on hold for nearly two weeks and not much is happening. The article's quite close to GA now so hopefully someone can deal with the last issues at some point and renominate.--BelovedFreak 09:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bianca Jackson/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CountdownCrispy 12:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

This is my first Good Article review - given the size of the backlog, I felt it was time I helped out. I'm optimistic that I will be able to offer plenty of fair advice to improve the article, and provide a fair assessment of its quality. If you would like to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page.

Quickfail?

Absolutely not - a lot of work has obviously gone into the article. The initial impression is that it is referenced, neutral, and stable, and so I will be happy to proceed with a full review. This will commence as soon as I save this page. If you are a keen contributor to this article, you might like to add this review page to your watchlist.

Overview by CountdownCrispy

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I'm inclined to fail this article as it will take more than 7 days to resolve the summary style issues discussed below. However, as this is my first GA review I will double-check my findings with a second opinion.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Prose is not ideally structured and contains too many quotations; the article's lead needs expansion: please see WP:LEAD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Almost there, in spite of the failings suggested above. Need to fix the unreferenced 2008— section and possibly alter some weak sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Most things covered, though improved prose will make this clearer. Surely there are more popular culture references though?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A fair balance of praise and criticism.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Occasional IP vandalism, but actually it's remarkably stable for a smart Alec-prone character in a thrice-weekly television drama.

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

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

   Fair use rationales? Yes. Fair use, in truth? I don't believe so.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Whilst the prose issues could be resolved whilst on hold, I'm not convinced that the length issue could be resolved within a week. After seeking a second opinion, I'll put the article on hold and check back in a week or so. It's been suggested that you read WP:FANCRUFT to see how much (if any) is appropriate, as this may help you simmer down the length of the article. Good luck.

Detailed comments from CountdownCrispy

Section 1: "It is reasonably well written"

• The section headings neatly divide the article, though I'm not sure "Rickaaaaaaay!" is an appropriate heading - it would be difficult to remember how many As are present when linking, if nothing else! Perhaps "Relationship with Ricky Butcher" would be more appropriate?
• Prose suffers because it is not optimally structured. The lead, for instance, is not chronological: it talks about Bianca from the 1990s, moves through to the 2000s, then to the present day, and then returns to the 1990s to discuss the character when she was first introduced. The lead also requires expansion to have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD.
• Furthermore, I don't feel that prose is focussed enough on Bianca as a character. For example, whilst the first two sentences of the "Background" section are directly relevant to Bianca, they could be applied to any number of characters from that era, and the first sentence could be applied to the whole show. I appreciate the information which is being conveyed, but don't believe it is being conveyed in the best way for a character-based article.
• The article feels very quotation heavy, with individual words such as "historic", "accident" and "rooted" in quotation marks when they would be best served integrated into the sentences. I also personally feel there are too many references to particular publications and journalists. Sentences such as...

Hester Lacey of The Independent has described Palmer's casting as an "accident", as she did not formally audition for the role.

...would convey the same information without the publication being mentioned. Such information would be better included as a footnote, and would make the article as a whole pithier.

• Where quotations are appropriate, they must be directly cited, like "quotation"<footnote> if they are in the middle of a sentence, even if the sentence has a citation at the end of the sentence. See WP:CITE#When quoting someone. The sentence...

In 1996, Palmer described Bianca as someone who deserves "a good slap"

...fails in this respect, and this should be checked throughout. Chris Barker's research is also affected by the above.

• Some unnecessarily tabloid-esque information: we know that Patsy Palmer is pregnant, so do we need to be told that "...she was already showing a baby bump"? If nothing else, such details will grow outdated.
• The article is very long. To quote the automated peer reviewer: "Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style."

Section 2: "It is factually accurate and verifiable."

• Pretty good - I followed several links and found that the references backed up the article. Cite templates are used correctly. This said:

• The sentence, "Palmer's portrayal of Bianca earned her a nomination for "Best Actress" at the 1998 Royal Television Society Awards" is referenced by a list from the 1997 Awards. This needs correction. (I cannot be bold as I do not know if this is a simple typo, or whether she was nominated in both years.) I'm happy to give this error the benefit of the doubt, though you should double check for similar errors.
  •  Done it was 1997. AnemoneProjectors 20:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that the Walford Gazette is the most reliable source available - it went down a little earlier whilst I was reviewing (though it has since returned), and surely there will be references in the mainstream media/on the BBC EastEnders website to provide equivalent information.
• The entire 2008— section is unreferenced. This needs fixing, as it could well constitute original research.

Section 3: "It is broad in its coverage."

• Although on the whole I was not left wanting, the popular culture section seems surprisingly short for such a prominent character. Were there impressions/sketches on 2DTV, Alistair McGowan and the like?
  • Apparently not, at least I can find no reference to anything else. AnemoneProjectors 20:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Also, the Secret Diary "...has the potential to make No.1 in the best-sellers list." How did it sell, in fact? Try and find some cold hard numbers rather than an unnamed sourced from the Sunday Mirror.
  • I cannot find any references that say how well the book sold, though Tiffany's Secret Diary was described as a best-seller here and Bianca's Secret Diary is also mentioned, so I would guess it wasn't a best-seller, but that's original research. AnemoneProjectors 20:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Improving the prose might make clearer any gaps in the articles coverage, though on the whole I was reasonably satisfied.

Section 6: "It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate."

• With the possible exception of the wedding image, I'm not convinced that any of the images really qualify for fair use. They illustrate a character played by an actress and, whilst perhaps one additional fair use image of her in character and costume would be appropriate for the infobox, on the whole I don't believe the images convey anything that would not be equally well shown through free images of Patsy Palmer, Sid Owen, Michael French and so on.
  • I have removed two of the images. But a photo of Patsy Palmer at a funeral would not be appropriate as it is not a photo of the character and is in no way representitive of the character. There was even a very long IFD about another fictional character where one person believed it should be deleted as it could be replaced with a free image of the actor, but consensus was that a picture of an actor is not a picture of a fictional character. I believe the image of Bianca from the 1990s is also appropriate. AnemoneProjectors 20:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall

Personally, I believe that whilst the prose could possibly be rewritten to a higher standard within a week, the potential move to multiple articles could not reach consensus and be implemented within that timescale. That said, I will refer my findings to another reviewer and ask them to see if they agree with my findings. Either way, I hope the above helps - the very best of luck with improving the article.

A week has passed and, whilst I accept the validity of some of the responses to my criticisms, I don't feel enough work has been done to this article to raise it to GA standard. I wish you luck editing it and may success come your way in a future nomination, but for now I am going to fail this GA review. CountdownCrispy 15:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have asked nobody to renominate this until issues have been resolved, as the issues from the first GAR hadn't even been resolved when the nominator nominated it a second time. But I completely disagree that because it is long it must be fancruft - that is the most ridiculous notion I have ever heard. AnemoneProjectors 16:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In my defence, the word 'fancruft' only entered the equation after a review by another editor of what was my first GA review. Whatever the reason for the article being so large, it's certainly a clear area for improvement. :-) CountdownCrispy 17:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, I saw that on your talk page. Anyway, thanks for the review. AnemoneProjectors 18:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't be serious? Asking for plots to be sourced, making out the article is too long? Fancruft? I'm sure the article would be twice as big if we were going to add all the pointless info on Bianca out there... You didn't even let the nominator know, so thankyou.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 20:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't get ratty with me. I was trying to help! Yes, this article too darned long; if you click edit you'll see the following message:

"Warning: This page is 62 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb."

In short, this article is about twice as long as it should be. I've offered friendly advice on this page as to how to go about reducing its length, but whether or not you want to take that advice is up to you. If you feel you weren't given enough notice to complete the work that needed doing, try seeking a reassessment. The fact of the matter is that I reviewed this a week ago, had a review of the review, received replies to my review, and only five edits have occurred since. If you're that dedicated to this article, I would have hoped you'd have checked up on it in the last week, and/or had it on your watchlist. Apologies for telling you the truth, and not what you wanted to hear. CountdownCrispy 21:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Departure

Just wanted to mention that Palmer is still being credited on 31 December 2010 and there's been no indication that that's the day she leaves.[4] But we have been told it's over the Christmas period though but that could mean New Year's Day.[5] Chances are she'd still appear after what happens happens... AnemoneProjectors 17:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Natasha

I'm confused. Was Natasha born or aborted? It said in one bit that 'Ricky and Bianca got the chance to hold their dead daughter'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boushenheiser (talk • contribs) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

She was aborted, but late into the pregnancy - meaning Bianca had to give birth to Natasha even though she was dead, but due to her being a late gestation, they had to file a birth and death certificate, as if she had been stillborn. Alex250P (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Boushenheiser (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Cousins

Derek Brannings two kids Joey and I forget the girls name

Stephen Beale (through Simon Wicks) Lucy Beale and Peter Beale (Through Ian) seems only Max's Kids have been added QueenAlexandria UTC 17/08/12 21:42 —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Bianca is related to a hell of a lot of people currently in on the Square, and I think listing all of them would be rediculous... Also, we tend to only list characters as relatives if they have actually shared a scene together, and Bianca has not met Joey or Alice yet. Bleaney (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Not just shared a scene but if they are important to the other person's storylines. –AnemoneProjectors– 12:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty stupid 'logic' to go by. Just because a character didn't interact with past familial relatives does not mean they shouldn't be mentioned. Keeping her uncle and grandfather added would fill more gaps for viewers of Eastenders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.125.163 (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Bianca said that Ricky was her ex-husband

She did, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're divorced. However, it's the best thing we have, and is probably correct. However, Ricky left in 2012 so we don't know if said divorce would have taken place in 2012 or 2013. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Family

Uh, David Wicks is her father then that means Simon Wicks is her uncle. It doesn't need to be removed and it is sourced. Her grandfather is Pete Beale. A character's family isn't ignored just because the current character never interacted with other characters. She never interacted with her niece Rebecca. Stephbenb: your logic is flawed. I never one of my grandfathers, so does that mean then there needs to be no mention of him on my family chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.125.163 (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Related to Ian?

How exactly is Ian Bianca's uncle? I'm just kinda curious :/ 151.224.135.50 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Her father, David, shares the same father with Ian, which makes them half-brothers. So Ian is Bianca's half-uncle. He is also a half-great uncle to Bianca's children, and David is a half-uncle to the Beale twins and Bobby, who are Bianca's half-cousins. Hope this helped ;) SamLaws81101 (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)