Talk:Episode 4778

	Episode 4778 has been listed as one of the Media and drama 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 15, 2025 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 7, 2025. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that an episode of the British soap opera EastEnders encouraged LGBTQ+ men to come out?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

BBC Low‑importance BBC portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (British TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy ProjectBBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. EastEnders This article is within the scope of WikiProject EastEnders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the popular BBC soap opera EastEnders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Tasks for WikiProject EastEnders: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : All articles listed in Category:Stub-Class EastEnders articles and Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective Other : Improve to FA standard: EastEnders: E20 Improve to GA standard: EastEnders Maintain: List of EastEnders characters (2023), List of EastEnders characters, List of former EastEnders characters, List of awards and nominations received by EastEnders Get involved in the Wikipedia EastEnders Project. England Mid‑importance England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBTQ+ studies LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion. Soap Operas This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion. Television: British / Episode coverage Low‑importance Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force. United Kingdom Low‑importance United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Wiki Loves Pride This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2025.

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Episode 4778/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 13:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ImaginesTigers (talk · contribs) 17:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DaniloDaysOfOurLives. I will review this for you. Although I currently have a nomination open, I am hoping to get feedback from an FAC regular so you don't need to treat this as QPQ request. I'm sort of familiar with the show through cultural osmosis but have never watched the show, so I'll be giving you a very distant perspective. As there aren't many references, I will fully review the article's sources.

Please note that I sign each line independently to allow you to use the "reply" feature.

Prose

Lead

• In the lead, could we split plot into a distinct paragraph, and leave the introductory sentences for production detail? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I might be off-base but I would think we should include the director here. If directors are not important to the show, you can ignore this. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The episode features the outcome -> Something like, "continues the story following the events of Episode 4777 [...]"? Optional — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Other storylines in the episode featured pregnant - Past tense when everything else is present
  • Done :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The episode also saw - As above but I think this on purpose. To ensure the same tense, "also depicts" as more formal?
  • Good idea, thank you:) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• this was done to facilitate the surprise -> this facilitated
  • Good idea, thank you:) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• well-received no need for the hyphen unless it's applying "well received" to something else (e.g., "well-received movie"; "well-received episode")
  • Good idea, thank you:) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

• being punched by Nancy early when she assumed -> earlier
• heart to heart seems a bit informal British - maybe "heartfelt conversation" or "open and honest conversation"? something like that
• When Lucy and Peter find their father -> Was he lost? Where did he get found?
• Kat and Alfie are told that the pregnancy is fine and they find out that they are having twins, which shocks him The construction here (Kat and Alfie; they; him) feels unnatural. Is Alfie the only one that's shocked? If so I think we should repeat his name. It just reads strangely to me
  • Done all of the above! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Production

• Not really feedback so much as a question – do the BBC really spoil the events of the entire episode before it's released? Or was this unusual? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • They usually release the spoilers for parts of the episode but not all - for example, Linda being upset about Johnny's reaction and the twin reveal were kept a surprise to viewers.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    All good then if this will make sense to the article's intended audience. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The writer also noted that whilst Mick was supportive of Johnny, they were not sure of how Linda would respond to her son coming out as gay – I think I'm missing out on some wider context here, but this appears to be marketing material. I was a bit confused at first because I thought "the writer" meant the writer of the show. I can see that it's assigned to the show's marketing team (EastEnder News Team), but I just wonder whether it's appropriate to include blog commentary – do they really wonder this? If they work on the show, wouldn't they know? This is an ecosystem I'm just not familiar with so if this hasn't been an issue for your past EE GAs then I won't throw a fit over it — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to change the sentence - is this okay? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the verb makes more sense. I don't think we know that's a writer for BBC One (the channel) as opposed to just "the BBC" is my only other feedback. I think it'd be more accurate to say "A writer from the BBC's EastEnders news team" or something to that effect, but "tease" makes more sense — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The rest of the material in this paragraph feels fine to me. It's just the one above that seems strange. The actor speculating on what it might mean for the future of the show seems appropriate to me – just including a BBC promotional team seems strange because they're not an impartial source speculating on it — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the prose here is well written, but structurally, it feels odd that it went back in time. We start with the show airing; then discuss some spoilers released previously; then get the defence of the coming out storyline; then recap what happened in the previous episode. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Going to the last paragraph – it happens again where we jump to pre-release spoilers at the very end for a separate storyline. I think it would feel tidier if there were sub-headings that moved chronologically. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely understand your point. I have had this dilemma when writing this episode articles and others. However, all in all I try to group the paragraphs thematically to try to make it flow better. If I did the spoilers first and then the real world info, it could confuse readers and they would have to reference back. Furthermore, the spoilers often tie in well with the real world info (e.g. it was reported that Kat would go to the hospital, but the twins were a surprise etc). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had another look and I can see the challenge. I can't think of a way that restructures it without basically rewriting the entire thing, which would be an unreasonable demand of prose that already meets the criteria. I can let this one go — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

• Overall very strong reception section. Some minor feedback from me – you've done a great job grouping things together and overall it's articulated clearly and concisely — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the first paragraph is a bit wandering

• Strike said Strike and Dyer received letters, which he was proud of
• Dyer separately said he received letters, which he was proud of
• Lucy said viewers had been in touch, which he was proud of

• I feel like it's possible to combine this to be a bit tighter with a strong topic sentence — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to reword it DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool, looks fine — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Same again where I'm not sold on including commentary from the BBC Blogs' internal promo team as actual reception. I really doubt there's "Editorial standards" for this – e.g., if it sucked, that they would say "this episode sucked"
  • I have removed it from the reception section :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  🫡 — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Stephen Patterson from Metro placed Johnny's coming out to Mick as one of EastEnders' best moments in its history -> Stephen Petterson from Metro said Johnny coming out to Mick was one of EastEnder's best moments (?) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Realising now that there are not 25 references. There are 25 sources. Based on this, I'm going to review 15 from Production and 10 from Reception. If there are no issues, I will consider the source check a pass on good faith.

The concerns I raised about the BBC Blog's inclusion above technically belong in this section. So please feel free to respond to those here. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• [1]–[3]: These technically don't pass because they were posted before the show aired. That said, I can imagine the impossible task of identifying a source that says "Yes it released at the time the BBC said it would" for a show that airs every night, so we can IAR this one.
• [4] – Pass
• [2][3] – Pass
• [2] - Pass
• [2] - Pass
• [5] - Pass
• [6] – Pass
• [7][5] – Pass. All this drama over days-old characters! Would I be right in saying they were added so that EastEnders could have a coming out storyline? Do you think there would be any sourcing to this effect? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were not introduced soley for this purpose but there is some info in the source I used for reception ([1]) which talks about the newness of the family affecting the scenes. I have not found any sources confirming that the family were introduced for this reason, but as they were the extended family of established characters and the owners of the pub (which is a huge setting in the soap) I doubt it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Understood — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• [8] - "Kindness agenda" is cute – were there no gay characters previous to the introduction of this family? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were many LGBTQ+ characters but they all had different storylines, and the last LGBTQ+ storyline was received badly (as seen in reception). Also I agree that it is a cute phrase! :D DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• [4] - Technically this calls it the "gay romance" storyline. [10] - part of a storyline that saw Johnny come out to his father Mick} – [11] – Pass
  • I am really sorry, I am a bit confused about #4? Do I need to do anything? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all – I was checking each reference in turn to validate "coming out storyline", but the first source (probably the lowest quality of the three) rather terribly calls it the "gay romance" storyline. No need for you to change anything, I was just writing the result of each check when I did. (Even if all three of them said "gay romance storyline", I would not ask you to change it.) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• [12][6] - pass
• [13] - pass

Reception

• Why are several of these URLs pointing straight to the archive when the site isn't dead? Attitude, for example — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure... I archived most of them the same way so I am not sure why this is the case. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not much you can do about this and I can't see anything on the code. I'll investigate this and post on your User talk if I find anything — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• [6] - Pass
• [17] - Pass
• [13] - Pass
• [10] Pass
• [18][19][20] - Pass, 3 feels like a bit of a refbomb
• [21][17] - Pass

I've reviewed 26 total refs now with 1 minor issue so I'm fine to call this a sourcing pass. Only real open queston is about the BBC Blog. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. With those changes made, and the promo source excised from reception, I'll pass the review. Congrats, and thanks again for the generous pledge — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Miminity talk 14:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the coming out scene in Episode 4778 of the British soap opera EastEnders encouraged LGBTQ+ men to come out?

• Source: [2]

• ALT1: ... that the coming out scene in Episode 4778 of the British soap opera EastEnders won EastEnders "Media Recognition Award" at the 2014 Attitude Awards? Source: [3]
• ALT2: ... that Danny Dyer was proud of the coming out scene in Episode 4778 of the British soap opera EastEnders which he was involved in? Source: [4]
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Olympic Villages
• Comment: Let me know if I should suggest another hook

Improved to Good Article status by DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 26 past nominations.

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Wow this article has really come along. Another soap DYK with an interesting hook. No issues with approving this. Nice job. Moondragon21 (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Discussion on naming convention for articles on unnamed TV episodes

There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Titling episode articles without titles that would affect how articles like this one are named.--Srleffler (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an interesting debate. I will check it out. Moondragon21 (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]