Revision as of 22:55, 16 January 2007 editAnemoneProjectors (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators176,340 editsm heading← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:59, 16 January 2007 edit undoAnemoneProjectors (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators176,340 editsm {{GA}}Next edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{EastEnders project class|class=GA|importance=high}} | {{EastEnders project class|class=GA|importance=high}} | ||
{{GA}} | |||
== Pauline and Joe = Jauline? == | == Pauline and Joe = Jauline? == |
Revision as of 22:59, 16 January 2007
EastEnders GA‑class | ||||||||||||||
|
Pauline Fowler has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. |
Pauline and Joe = Jauline?
Or should we refer to them as Poe? :) --Sweetie Petie 19:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry and thank you
I didn't hear Pauline say she would be keeping her name which is why I moved the page - but some silly person did a revert instead of moving the page back so it's not my fault things got messed up! Thanks to whoever deleted the article so it could done properly. --Sweetie Petie 11:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- No problem! They still have her listed as Pauline Macer at Walford Web... which is annoying! Trampikey 09:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Italics
Is it right that Pauline's relatives are all in italics when others like Rebecca Miller are not? Which is right? — Gary Kirk // talk! 15:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Members of the WikiProject are currently in the process of changing the style and order of family sections for all EastEnders characters. Soon they will all be the same. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Current storyline
Anyone else find it ludicrous? 82.69.28.55 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
im just glad shes gone the old battleaxe :} sailor cuteness-ready for love 01:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
GA Status
This article seems to meet GA status. It is well referenced and complete. For higher status such as A or FA it should either be shortened or broken into more subsections. Cott12 Talk 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories: