Talk:Darren Osborne

Fair use rationale for Image:JackOsborne.jpg

Image:JackOsborne.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 ensure 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) 06:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Refs...

...go after punctuation. So, someone's got a tedious job ahead of them. - JuneGloom Talk 14:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just been through the reception section and noticed a few problems. I haven't got time to check the whole article, but you want to make sure the show name, newspapers, magazines, etc are italicized. Some refs were missing publishers, so make sure you check them out too. - JuneGloom Talk 14:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, i'll do it now. I noticed some of my refs link to the first page in a series and the url doesn't change when you scroll pages so it constantly links to the first page. Is there any way to ref to that particular page or to archive it? D4nnyw14 (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me an example? - JuneGloom Talk 15:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref's 17, 18 and 19. D4nnyw14 (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'm not sure there's anything you can do about it. Maybe include a note in the ref itself, saying which page the info is on. - JuneGloom Talk 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks i'll do that D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a positive thing you have done. Though I do think there is a lot more to be done to this article. Darren is on of the shows most notable characters and the sources go on forever. I always shyed away from it. I think the fake death scam carried a lot of coverage around with it. His early relationship's and the bigot storyline may have more. Then you have his relationship with Nancy too.

I think the storyline section is too big. Then try and sort the refs out, overlinking publications occurs throughout the article. Actor names could be added. If you need any help, I'm offering.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Which parts of the Sls do you suggest to be cut? I have cut them loads but i'm not sure which parts are more important than others? What do you mean by overlinking publications as well, do you mean to other wiki articles? D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not that some of the plots need not be there - it's a little wordy. So for instance

"After Hannah's departure Darren becomes friendly with her mum Suzanne Ashworth who is having marital problems. At Carmel and Calvin Valentine's wedding, Suzanne arrives alone and spends the day flirting with Darren. They later sneak off and have sex. They resume their brief affair but are caught by Suzanne's son Rhys. Rhys attacks Darren before telling Neville about the affair, who kicks Suzanne out of their home. Suzanne has no choice but to move in with Darren, Cindy and Holly. Jack and Darren reconcile and Jack tells him that he wants him to move in with him and Darren accepts. On the day of Cindy's wedding to Alistair Longford Darren proposed but she rejects him saying she wanted to give Holly the best."

Could be

"Darren supports Suzanne Ashworth (Suzanne Hall) through her marital problems. They grow close and begin an affair, until Rhys exposes their affair. Neville throws Suzanne out of her home, forcing Darren to take her in. Suzanne decides to leave Darren and move to Spain with Neville. Darren reconciles with Jack and fails to win back Cindy's affections as she marries Alistair Longford."

I think if you shorten through out and leave out too much detail of the scenario, it would be better. (Such as being at Carmel's wedding day, flirting and sneaking away. Just say they started an affair and use any notable detail in development sections)

• Overlinking in this article would apply to words that don't need to be linked, to further benifit the readers knowledge. So words like "disowned" and "affairs" in the lead. It's usually just places, works of fiction, publications, names, medical terms, unknown slang words
• Publications such as "What's on TV" being linked three times, "Metro" being linked three times, then Digital Spy, Daily Mail being linked too many times.
• Remember websites such as BBC America do not need to be italicised.
• Refs need to be more consistent so Digital Spy is the worst offender, it doesn't need to be italicised.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all you're help, i'll go through the article and try and improve it shortly :) D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's okay. I can find some more sources later if you like. I have a book on Hollyoaks that may some useful info.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That'd be great, any more sources will be much appreciated. If there is anything in the HO books that'd be great aswell :) Thanks D4nnyw14 (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Darren's dress sense

• [1] - - This has good info on his change of style.
• [2] - Jess forrest reckons Darren has best dress sense
• [3] - Ashley on Darren's tan

Fued with Warren Fox

• [4] - Darren gets shot

Fake death scam

• [5] - Body swap plot is announced
• [6] - Fake death

Relationship with Cindy I think the problem here is that it's just a few quotes at selective points. These two have been through many twists and turns.

• [7] - This is from when they cheat on Tony, has some useful quotes.

• [8] Ashley T-D on Hollyoaks Later and his and Cindy's plan to scam Tony

• [9] - Nick pickard mentions the scam breifly

Hannah & Suzanne Ashworth

• [10] - Darren and Hannah to marry

• [11] - ATD Interview on Darren and Hannah's marriage

• [12] - Emma Rigby's view on why the two married. Kris Green also adds reception when she bemoans the pair for having no chemistry.

• [13] - Darren gets stabbed trying to save Hannah

• [14] - Darren sleeps with Suzanne

• [15] - Darren and Suzanne caught out?

Relationship with Nancy (and babies)

• [16] - Ashley T-D talks about whether Darren is better suited to Cindy or Nancy

• [17] - Suzanne's return Twin shock for Darren

• [18] - Done! See this has a good quote in the final question where he makes a point of Darren being through all these melodramas such as being blown up and shot, and now it's fatherhood - he has enjoyed all of it. But he makes the point of looking to it as a positive change to darren.

• [19] - There is plenty of info about the twins here that can be put to use. And his relationship with Nancy gets a good innings.

Misc

• [20] - Darren gets Tom drunk
• [21] - I forget which storyline she is refering to but Lucy Allan announces more disapointment from Darren.
• [22] - Ashley T-D compares Darren to Jake Dean and info about Holly
• [23] - Done! Not sure if it of any use but could hold as a ref for creations or backstory.

Reception

• [24]
• [25] - Jaci Stephen reception
• [26]- Best Villan nom at 2005 BSA's

Comments

Thanks for these i'll sort through them now. Small question where would things like Tom getting drunk and body swap go, which section? And the sl's was already written and is both past and present tense, does it have to be one in particular? Thankls for you're help :) D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Storyline sections need to read in present tense, as you can rewatch the work of fiction over and over again - so it is always present. (Remember development sections account for real world info, so past tense is needed, apart from any discussion of the plot itself) .. I think Tom getting drunk can be part of a section perhaps called storyline development. I'll look where it can be fitted in when more info is added. Body swap would be for the fake death plot, it sort of ties in with the fued with Warren, but they can be seperate sections. I'll keep looking for more in the meantime. Sorry to be springing these sources on you like this. Darren's article has so much potential and I'll admit that I've shyed away from it because of the amount of work needed.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Haha you're not springing them on me and have been really helpful. Im really bad at finding sources and thanks for all the help with everything i don't know D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You know before you add anymore info though. There is something I should mention. A lot of the text is really "quotey" - like many quotes mashed together. You will need to paraphrase these, as GA reviewers always pick at them. Zoe Carpenter is perhaps the worst offenders because she has way too many quotes. So in the reception section, Metro's Duncan offered some great recepetion. Big quotes over three lines need to be put in a quote box or broken down. If you really like that quote you can keep it (I'll admit it's a fantastic way to sum him up.) Me and another editor loved a quote about Oliver Valentine so much we kept it. Look at his reception section for the example.RaintheOne ^BAM 23:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try my best to paraprase more and cut down quotes. I'll go over it now D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if you want the quote box and are not sure how to do it, I'll add whenever you need me too.RaintheOne ^BAM 23:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Done it but thanks anywayD4nnyw14 (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion - I think if you put creation before casting, combine the two under main heading "Character creation and casting" - it would look better.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for all the advice :) D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but now i've added everything else in any idea where Tom, Warren etc. would go or should they all have there own section which would be a bit pointless? D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I only just noticed this. Well the Warren stuff flows into the Fake death storyline. If you write about that and combine the two, that would be good. Also as there are so many relationships, how about having a "Relationships" section in the development and having the sub-headers as "Cindy Cunningham", "Hannah Ashworth" etc... like we did with Ken Barlow.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the advice. I'll probably do a death scam section and a separate storyline development section for the rest like Tom etc.D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Steven Zhang (talk · contribs) 04:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC) This is going to take me a while. I am not very familiar with the GA process so I will take this one slowly, so bear with me. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   There are a few issues that becomes apparent through a brief skim of the article. The prose is quite choppy at times, and seems to be a little bit simple and repeditive. It doesn't flow very well. For example, "Darren Osborne is a fictional character from the British Channel 4 soap opera Hollyoaks, played by Ashley Taylor Dawson. He made his first on-screen appearance on 18 November 1996, then played by Adam Booth." There are a few typos I spotted at a glance, loose instead of lose and caisson instead of casino. The article does do a decent job of complying with WP:INUNIVERSE however.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Reference formatting is good and reasonably uniform across the board. I note that there are a few dead links (which you can find here so these need to be fixed if possible. The fact that none of the storylines section is sourced (even using {{Cite episode}} creates the potential for original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All major aspects are covered within the article. The glaring issue is the size of the storylines section, it's very long and unfocused. It would be better if this could be combined with the Character development section, in such a way that Gregory House does, but at a miniumum I'd suggest cutting it down, at least by 2/3 and using cite episode where possible. The rest looks good, but the reception section may have potential to be expanded, but at present is adequate.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No major issues with neutrality from what I observed. I admit that I haven't had a very close look, mainly due to the larger problems that I saw with the article, but nothing stuck out at me.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars to speak of in the history.

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):

   Rationales are OK, though a little vague. I would like to see a better rationale for either the infobox image or the one in the characterisation section, and think that only one of these is necessary. The resolution of the infobox image should be scaled down a bit more, I generally use 250x375px but it's OK as is.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Unfortunately at this stage it's a fail. There are quite a few issues that need to be addressed before this can become a GA, so I would encourage a good copyedit, as well as condensing some of the plot information. Feel free to use User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet as you work through the article, if you can tick everything off the list then you'll know this is ready. Best of luck. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey can i ask why it was failed so fast? After waiting for the review for a while i wasn't even given a chance to make any changes and per discussion soap plots do not have to be sourced. The guidelines are here and the discussionhere. I was willing to make changes but instead it was failed. D4nnyw14 (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I am off to bed but will post an explanation in the morning. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not up yet, but just a quick note, if you want an article off, you could use Martha Logan. Take it with a grain of salt though as it's an article I got to GA, but figured it might help. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 16:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks i'll look at it. D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in a response, I've been quite busy today, but am happy to clarify my reasons for failing this article at this time. At times GA reviewers will put a nomination on hold to address minor issues, normally within a one week period. Part of the problem here is that there are a lot of issues to be addressed with this article, as I listed above. I read over the discussions and links that you provided above, however a localised consensus cannot override global consensus, which generally exists at WP:PLOT, as well as Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Citations and Wikipedia:WAF#Plot_summaries. There's the potential for copyright violations as well, in-detail plot summaries are troublesome, as well as original research. Without any referencing there is no way for anyone to verify if the content in the plot section is accurate. The length of plot and lack of referencing was the main reason I failed this, but the issues with prose also stuck out. If you address the issues with plot and get a general copyedit done, I'd be happy to re-review it, but it needs some solid work first. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's such a pain to need to source a soap opera though. One plot that might only need a line could span upto 20 episodes. Episodes aren't titled either. That's what the discussion was about. Anyway i've started cutting down the plot how much further does it need to be cut? After i've finished the plot i'll adress the rest of the issues. One other point is this character in particular has been in the soap opera for nearly 12 years so the plot is short in comparison to what he has done in his time. Thanks for the reply D4nnyw14 (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed a pain to source and cut down, its the reason I haven't got Jack Bauer to GA, it will be very hard to condense 8 seasons of plot down. Keep at it, and feel free to poke me at my talk page when you feel it's ready. Best of luck, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, didn't notice it. I think it's ready except for the storylines. How much further do they need to be cut down? I don't know how i'm going to source it either. D4nnyw14 (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review istranscluded from Talk:Darren Osborne/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 19:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I've reviewed soap opera articles before, so I look forward to learning more about British soaps. Christine (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS forlead,layout, word choice, fiction, andlists):

   I see from the previous GAN in November that one of the major issues that prevented it from passing was prose. I haven't done a history check, but it seems that very little has changed in this area. The first reviewer stated that the prose was choppy, and it still isI recommend that you take it to a copyeditor before considering bringing it back to GAN. It's the one thing that will prevent it from moving forward, and until it's addressed, I can't pass it.

   For example, right away, in the lead, there are noun-verb agreement issues: Darren was reintroduced to the serial in 1999 having been recast, now played by Ashley Taylor Dawson -should be Darren was reintroduced to the serial in 1999 after the role was recast with current performer Ashley Taylor Dawson. Also, the last two sentences in this paragraph are choppy. You also depend too much on quotations, and could paraphrase more. I could go on, but I've never thought that GAN was the place to go through an article like it seems to be in FAC.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   This seems to have been improved since the last review. I've always been impressed with the amount of sources in the British press about their soaps, something we in America don't enjoy. That means that the potential to improve articles about British soaps is great. There is still room for improvement, though. I looked at just a few refs, but noticed that Ref6 is broken. Please makes sure that you go through the refs again. Also, you use several chat transcripts. I'm not sure about their reliability, but I've allowed it in other reviews about TV shows.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I think that if you get this article copyedited, it'd be more focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems good.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   As before, no edit wars to speak of in the history.

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

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

   This article seems to suffer from the same malady of many of the media-focused articles that I edit: an unavailability of free images. One trick I've learned is to use quoteboxes, which you do, but the one in the "Reception" section is way too long.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll hold the nomination until it's copyedited. If there's not a good faith attempt to do so, I can't pass it. Christine (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review i'll begin working on the points soon. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Which ref is broken? Ref 6 is working. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's working now. Christine (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Christine in response to your concern about the final paragraph of "Character creation and casting" crossing into fansite information - I removed Dawson's pondering over which other character he would like to play in the series. I think the remainder could be used, it highlights that the character has longevity - is that okay now? I could give it a bit of a jiggle to tighten it, if not..Rain the 1 23:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, I like what you've done. Christine (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions during copyedit

Hi, I thought I'd come here and make further suggestions as I copyedit this article. Its current GAN won't be affected by these suggestions, so it's up to its main editors whether they want to use them.

• British usage: please go through and make sure that the British usage is correct. I have some experience with it, but not a lot, so I may either miss or over-correct it.
• Lead: Notice that I separated the final three sentences into its own paragraph. I recommend that instead of picking reviews to include in the lead, that you summarise that reviews you've included and expand the paragraph a few more sentences. I may do that for you as I copyedit that section in the article and become more familiar with the text.
• Character creation and casting:

Dawson was 17 years old when he joined the cast of Hollyoaks after getting his big break with the National Youth Theatre. What's the timing of this? Was Dawson with the National Youth Theatre at the time of his casting?

Final paragraph: I'm not so sure about this paragraph. I suspect that if you were to ever take this article to FAC, the reviewers would suggest cutting it. It borders on being too much like a fansite.

• Characterisation:

I suggest putting the first quote in a quotebox for standarisation purposes.

The last four lines, 2nd paragraph: I suggest either cutting it entirely, or paraphrasing it like this: Dawson felt that as time went on, Darren became more helpful, sympathetic and more empathetic towards other characters, especially Jake. Dawson stated, "It's very uncharacteristic but Darren is softening up". He added that Darren's difficult experiences led him to mature and act like a "bit of a saint", but that he was still misunderstood a great deal.

3rd paragraph: This is an example of what I talked about in the GAN regarding a reliance on too many quotes. It's also repetitive, with all the "these-and-those said this-and-that". I like the first quote, so keep that. You could simply list what all those folks said about Darren, like this: Darren has been described as a "relentless schemer and ne'er-do-well"[ref], the "village hunk"[ref], heartless and devious [ref], a "bad boy" and a "twisted hunk"[ref], "sleazy"[ref] and a "money-grabbing womaniser".[ref] Amy Duncan of the Metro described the character as "charming", with the "cocky arrogance that make him a bad boy" and "known for being better at making enemies than friends in Chester just as much as he is known for starting up affairs".[ref]

I think you should ditch the second part of Dawson's quote about Darren's clothing as it's redundant. Same goes for E4's comment, which should also be cut. The Virgin Media quote is just too good to cut. The final two quotes are also redundant and unnecessary.

The quote in the image needs to be referenced.

• Earlier storylines

After Darren becomes friends with Mark, he rapes Luke. This is unclear. Who rapes whom? I ask because not knowing makes later prose unclear.

More later. Christine (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Gambling addiction:

The quote by Dawson made to What's on TV is much too long. I recommend that you either remove it completely, cut the length, or put it in a quotebox. My vote would be for a quotebox, since it is a good analysis of Darren's addiction.

• Fake death scam:

It's my understanding that with serials, the point is not to reiterate a character's every storyline, but the most important ones, or the ones that give most insight into his personality. For that reason, I suggest that you remove the final paragraph in this section. You could also fold the content into the gambling section, since it was a result of Darren's problems.

This is fun; I'll continue after the main editors have gone through more. Happy New Year! Christine (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this, i'll begin to make changes soon. Happy new year to you too :) D4nnyw14 (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the image caption back as it isn't one of Darren's earliest appearances but his earlier appearance only a few years ago. I'm not sure about the final paragraph of the Casting section as Rain said it highlights his duration with him being one of the longest serving characters in the series and the bit about Dawson wanting to stay is important too. D4nnyw14 (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hannah Ashworth

Darren and Hannah (Emma Rigby) go on a rock 'n' roll weekend in Denmark... Excuse my ignorance/naivety, but what the heck is "a rock 'n' roll weekend"? Please explain! ;) It's best to assume that your readers are as ignorant as I am, especially in regards to witticisms like this.

You tend to use this phrase often: "On [this storyline] Dawson said [...]". It's somewhat repetitive. I've tried to vary it somewhat; I may go back later and try to vary it a bit more.

Digital Spy chose Darren's proposal as their "picture of the day" feature. When, and in what issue?

Darren begins scheming with Cindy to scam The Dog. Darren decides to stay married to try to get The Dog back, so proposes to Hannah. I don't understand this at all. Weren't they already married when Darren decides to scam Hannah? Remember, I've never seen Hollyoaks, so you need to explain stuff to me. It's safe to assume that most of your readers are in the same boat.

Is there an image of Emma Rigby somewhere? Christine (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll make changes later. Regarding the lead for reviews i'll leave it for now and allow you to do that as im not good with leads. I'll make the proposes thing clearer. There is a free image of Rigby, could you think of any sort of suitale caption to go with this? D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and no hurry. I'm not so great with leads, either, but I'll do my best. It helps to be familiar with the article, so I'll get to it at the end. I think leads are the hardest kind of writing on WP! Go ahead and add the Rigby image, and I'll see what I can come up with. Christine (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Suzanne Ashworth

You should mention the relationships here, that Rhys is Suzanne's son and Darren's friend, and that Neville is her husband.

She gives birth on 21 January 2011 to Francine and Jack Osborne. Suzanne and the twins move into Nancy's flat which leads Nancy to end their relationship. In March Cindy returns and pays Suzanne to leave the village, which she accepts ending their relationship. These sentences are very unclear. Who is in a relationship with Nancy? Whose relationship ends after Cindy pays off Suzanne? And on a personal note, gad, I love soaps. ;)

Image of Suzanne Hall?

• Nancy Hayton

First Dawson quote re Nancy in first paragraph: Again, too long, and better belongs in a quotebox.

Dawson also commented saying "They were complete opposites - he was a male chauvinist pig pig, and she was a feminist. But somewhere in all the madness, they seem to be on the same page". I think you should cut this quote as it's repetitive and doesn't add anything new.

Again, Dawson's quote about the babies is too long. I'd either cut it or paraphrase, perhaps like this: "We're used to Darren thinking of himself, but for the first time he's not - he's thinking of the babies". Dawson believed that the situation was fine for Darren, but that it was too difficult for Nancy. Dawson also enjoyed the pairing and hoped that Darren and Nancy's relationship would continue. Christine (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fatherhood

First two sentences, first paragraph: You've already gone into great detail about the twins storyline, so this is repetitive. I suggest cutting them and starting this way: "Digital Spy called Suzanne's return and the birth of Darren's twins as a "bizarre mess".

Dawson's quote about the twins' birth is also too long. How about: Dawson noted that the birth of Darren's babies is messy and surprising. Darren finds himself in a situation he never expected when he has to deliver the babies and accept responsibility for them. Dawson stated, "I think it's a moment where Darren changes a little bit".

I think the first quote in the new second paragraph is too long and repetitive as everything in it has already been stated. As a result, it should be cut as well. Let me know if you decide to cut it, because if you do, we'll have to fold some of the content somewhere.

Image caption is unclear. Is Darren the one who changed, or Dawson, or both? ;) Christine (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made the changes. I've added the image of Rigby but it needs some sort of relevant caption, no free image of Hall unfortunatley. Is it more clear now about the engagement and rock n roll weekend? I've made Suzanne more clear. I've not put the Dawson quote about Nancy in a box but have paraphrased, if you still think it should go in a box then i can do that. The quote you said to cut was cut but i've folded the new bits into the first paragraph. Is there anywhere where you think that storylines aren't necessary in the development section, i've tried to include only storylines that will effect reader's understanding of the section and further detail is included in the storyline section. D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Man, I have to come here when I'm sure you're not, because of all the edit-conflicts! ;) I moved the images to alter their placements as is recommended. I think the Rigby caption is fine. Personally, I hate "Storyline" sections. They're usually not well-written and bore me. I think that cutting the section would serve this article well. You've already discussed Darren's major storylines, and the one that provide the best information about his character. I know that soap character articles traditionally have a Storylines section, but I don't like 'em. I mean, Pauline Fowler, the only soap opera character that has an FA, doesn't have one. But it's totally up to you--I'll hold off ce'ing it until you decide. Christine (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe i should merge all the storylines into the development sections. They'd still be sourced and could be cut down? D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the storyline section should remain. The storyline section is fully sourced, not too long for a character of Darren's duration. It does aid the reader's knowledge to an extent.Rain the 1 23:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, and stand by my previous statement. I suspect the commitment to Storyline sections is one of the many reasons there aren't many FA soap articles. I would bet good virtual money that if you brought this article to FAC, it'd fail with this section. It's repetitive, reads like a list with no connections, and makes no sense to anyone unfamiliar with Hollyoaks and the character. It won't be a hindrance to it passing to GA, though, but as I say, it'll probably prevent it from going any further. Christine (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How would you suggest getting around this without just clearly cutting all the information? D4nnyw14 (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you should just cut all the information. Much of it has already been said (now I'm being repetitive), or it simply isn't needed to improve the reader's understanding of Darren. Go read Pauline Fowler, which really should be the model of the soap character article.

So I'm now finished with the copyedit. I'm sorry this section is so long, but when I started, I didn't honestly think it would be. I'll wait a couple of days for you to make the changes before I pass it to GA. It was fun learning about Darren; he's a great, classic soap opera character, and very cool. Oh, one more thing before I go. In the Reception section, you committed my #1 pet peeve in writing: using it's instead of its. This is correct: He added that the "tried-and-tested" characters helped the show through its rough patches and that they should be given the storylines they deserved. The possessive form is correct, not the contraction ("it is" --> "it's"). Please stop! ;) Christine (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, all the changes suggester here have been made. Is the only thing still left to do is decide whether the storyline section will stay and expand the lead? D4nnyw14 (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to split the storyline section into the development section but it became really messy and there are pieces of info in the storyline section which wouldn't fit into any section. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The last reviewer wouldn't pass it because the storyline section was not sourced - D4nny spent hours of year free time sourcing it - only to be told to drop it. Pauline Fowler has long been pulled up as the perfect example - she was promoted a few years ago and I think things have changed at FAC. Just look how many non free images the article has. Back onto Darren, I'd ask you to consider the effort that has been put in, take into account that every other GA in this field has been passed with such a section - and then if this article is taken to FAC - cut the section out then.Rain the 1 00:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Rain. I had a go which is here. It needs copyediting and cleaning up but i managed to corporate all the storylines into the development section. If that isn't going to work then i think the storyline section should just be kept. D4nnyw14 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that makes the development sections weak - like they are filled with many in universe aspects.Rain the 1 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the sourcing in the "Storylines" section; my issue is with the prose. D4nnyw14, your sandbox version recreates some of the problems that my copyediting had solved (choppiness, weak prose). I think that for GA, the section is fine, but as Raintheone says, it won't be at FAC, and it really does make the development sections weaker. I mean, do character articles have to describe every bloody thing that ever happened to them? Bart Simpson, for example, does not; rather, it describes Bart as a character in the show he's in. Perhaps soap opera editors should take that and other FA fictional character articles as a model. I'm just saying! In the meantime, I'll get at working on this article's lead and then pass it to GA by tomorrow. Christine (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for the review, ce and for passing the article. I see what you mean about the storyline section and the sandbox version was just to see how it'd look but it would never have worked. D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and congratulations. You've done so much work on this article! So much of writing in general, and especially here on WP, is about cutting. It feels like a waste of time, but we shouldn't be so committed to the words that the quality is hindered. I think it's a shame, due to the gender gap, I'm sure, that so few soap opera articles from any countries are high-quality, so you're to be commended. Keep up the good work, and let me know how I can help in the future. Christine (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou, just saw that i've made over 450 edits to this article! D4nnyw14 (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh honey, that's nuthin'! I've made over 900 edits on my first FA! [27] We wouldn't do it if we weren't committed to this project and to the subject, and if it wasn't fun. Christine (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully i won't need to make double the edits to get this article to FA D4nnyw14 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources 2012

• [28] - What's on TV Interview.Rain the 1 02:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• [29] Cindy
• [30] Jessica Fox interview
• [31] Dawson on Darren/Nancy

D4nnyw14 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• [32] stag
• [33] Steph Waring on love triangle

D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Don't see general agreement in this debate to rename this article. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, there is no prejudice toward editors continuing in a few weeks or months to attempt to achieve consensus for the highest and best title for this page. Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Darren Osborne → Darren Osborne (Hollyoaks) – There may be reason to believe that the convicted murderer Darren Osborne of the 2017 Finsbury Park attack is now the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There are 79,000 Google results for "Darren Osborne Hollyoaks", mainly from British tabloids. There are 228,000 such results for "Darren Osborne Finsbury", including from the BBC, Guardian, Sky and Independent. The fictional Osborne has been in the public eye since the 1990s. However, the real one, despite only being known for six months, has a much more intense coverage. It is also not too WP:CRYSTAL to imagine that the real one will be written about in articles and scholarly papers on radicalisation and far-right violence into the future. I also propose redirecting the "Darren Osborne" namespace into the 2017 Finsbury Park attack article. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support move and support possible creation of WP:TWODABS page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The real-life Osborne doesn't have his own page as far as I can tell, and I don't know that it's proper for a redirect to 2017 Finsbury Park attack to be considered a primary topic. The hatnote at the top of this article takes care of those coming here looking for the terrorist.— TAnthony^Talk 21:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per TAnthony. If this article was a stub, I'd be more inclined to make the move, but it's a GA. Currently, people are looking for the criminal as it's headline news (for the short-term). Come back in a month, and I doubt most people will recall the name of the perpetrator, but would be more likely to recall it as the "Finsbury Park attack", so the hatnote does the job here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Neither primary have to say I think Lugnuts is probably right. But on the other hand, a soap character 1996-2000? a WP:TWODABS does seem justified here after all. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Darren Osborne had 58909 page views in 2016, and 59923 in 2017. The difference caused by the attacker appears to be insubstantial. There was a spike in the month the attacks took place, and that was it. The attacker has no article, and there's a hatnote on the page. That should all be sufficient. Dekimasuよ! 20:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed text

WP:CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section removed from the article by me because it's largely irrelevant to the artiucle's subject. I'm leaving it here for the benefit of future editors and in case its removal breaks any references. Baffle☿gab 05:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC) <blockqute>

Arrival of his maternal family

In February 2013, it was announced Eastenders star Gillian Taylforth would join the series on 23 May 2013. Taylforth said, "I am really looking forward to joining Hollyoaks, which is going from strength to strength under Bryan Kirkwood at the moment". The actor also said she was excited to relocate to Liverpool where the serial is filmed and was eager to meet her on-screen family. Taylforth had previously announced that she was in talks to join the serial, saying that she felt nervous at the prospect of joining the serial but that the part was "a long contract so it will be nice to settle back into something".

Follow by her annoucment it was confirmed that she will be arriving with her six sons, , with Ayden Callaghan, Charlie Clapham, Fabrizio Santino, Charlie Wernham & Alfie Browne-Sykes portrayed as Joe, Freddie, Ziggy, Robbie and Jason. Follow by their arrival, the twist of the fate reveal for Sandy's as she was Darren real mother. It was reveal that she and Jack Osborne Jimmy McKenna had an affair, behind Jack's wife Celia (Carol Noakes) and Sandy's husband Alan back.

References

Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)