Talk:Charlie Suff

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:Charlie Suff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 00:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Time to return the favour after you reviewed an uncountable number of my GAs! I know nothing about acting, so I'm looking forward to learning! IAWW (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @DaniloDaysOfOurLives, comments are below. I'll wait for those concerns to be addressed before continuing. IAWW (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) clock

Resolved points

He then performed in other plays, such as Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons in 2019. Suff has also appeared in various short films and other productions, including a play he wrote during the COVID-19 pandemic,: This should be condensed into one short sentence. "Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons" and his pandemic play are not notable enough for the lead, because they are only sourced to a review and an in passing mention on a trivia article. IAWW (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

No sources on his birth date? IAWW (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

He had a passion for performing from a young age, which he described as: Can be condensed to "He described his passion for performing as" for conciseness. "He had a passion for performing from a young age" has a slight hint of being promotional without imparting real information. IAWW (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

one of whom he still lives with: A bit closely paraphrased. IAWW (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

He enjoyed his time there: This is sourced to an article by the school, while Suff was there. First, the source is going to be biased to keep the good things he says about the school and remove the bad things, and second, I very much doubt Suff would say anything bad about the school while he was still at the school, to the school itself. I think this should be cut as it doesn't really impart real information. The second half of the sentence can be kept because it is way more specific. IAWW (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Suff performed in various of the Bristol Old Vic's theatre productions: "various of" is grammatically incorrect IAWW (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

He was born and grew up in Brighton and later studied Performing Arts at East Sussex College. He then trained at the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School, where he appeared in various theatre productions. He then... So many "He"s and "He then"s makes this rather monotonous. IAWW (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Consider archiving all references to prevent link rot. IAWW (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

which led to him discovering the stage to channel his: A bit WP:EDITORIALized IAWW (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead

Looks good :)

Early and personal life

[1] and [2] are used twice in a row, the first instances of each can be removed. IAWW (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Career

noting how Johnny was still linked to the soap and the "iconic" Queen Victoria pub despite not having appeared since 2018: Opinion – "noting" implies it was not an opinion. IAWW (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Suff was also involved in an episode which featured a guest appearance from singer Olly Alexander before he represented the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024: A bit of excessive detail, I'm sure Suff was involved in lots of episodes, why is this one especially notable? IAWW (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

the !"The Six" storyline: Is there meant to be an ! here? IAWW (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

due to working with the female cast members involved: What was so special about the female cast members? IAWW (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

it showed how Johnny's character had changed: How did it change, and what is "it" referring to here? IAWW (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Filmography

Looks good :)

Theatre

This is beyond GA, but why are the sources included differently in the Filmography and Theatre sections? IAWW (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

This is because a lot of the sources for "Theatre" are the same ones, so it would be repeating the same ref again and again, whereas filmography has more separate ones. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah okay fair enough :) IAWW (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

Looks good :)

Sources clock

Reliability (Criterion 2b) clock

Mostly online news. There are a few weak sources:

• "the up coming" – very small news publication. Reliability is unclear, however it is used in this article extremely sparingly, and I think this is quite an uncontroversial subject matter so there is no reason for them to lie.
• The Daily Mirror is a tabloid. Biographies of living persons articles must not cite tabloid journalism (WP:BLPRS). All references to the Mirror must be removed.
• Creative Artists Management appears to be Suff's agency, so I think this can be classified as a self-published source. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, these can be used as sources on themselves with some restrictions. The use of this source falls in these restrictions so there are no issues here.
• [10] is not sufficiently reliable. The video is used as part of [2] though, so it can just be cut. IAWW (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d) clock

Spot check numbers based on this version:

[1a, b]: Y

[2a]: Y

[12c]: Y

[22]: Y

Copyvio (Criterion 2d) Y

Earwig finds nothing except direct quotes. The sources are almost all online, so it is very unlikely it missed anything.

Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) clock

From the beginning of the career section up until "The following year, Suff portrayed Luke Jones in the first episode of the British crime drama Grace", the only reliable secondary sources are:

• Two references to a trivia news article
• A review of a production he was involved in, in a small theatre news/review site

Because most of this section has not been published by reliable secondary sources, I think it is insufficiently notable for inclusion (WP:N), it therefore is unnecessary detail and violates GA criterion 3b. I believe it should be condensed into a sentence or two to maintain broadness. IAWW (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives Thanks for condensing, I don't think it is condensed nearly enough yet unfortunately. I think it needs to be condensed to one or two sentences to not go into unnecessary detail per the argument above. Note I did get a second opinion on this, just to make sure I wasn't being unnecessarily barbaric. It's painful removing your own work, but such is the way of Wikipedia... I have been though it before myself when I had to cut Matthew Webb in half. That was painful at the time. IAWW (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@It is a wonderful world: I have cut down further. It was painful (hate cutting stuff!) but I hope it is okay now... DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Much better. IAWW (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Media Y

Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be an image of him.

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

In 2021, Suff portrayed Luke Jones in the first episode of the British crime drama Grace. In 2022, Suff played Andy in the film The Modern Way. That same year, he appeared as Jason in the short film Never Has a Man. In 2023, Suff guest starred in the premiere episode of the eighth series of the British ITV detective drama Granchester as a thug named Tommy Wilson. Suff also appeared in the short films Fantoma and Modern Love: When writing encyclopedic articles, listing facts like this isn't the goal. Facts should be given context – what were these characters notable for? What was it like for him acting them? What are the shows about? Otherwise, you end up repeating primary sources rather than a new tertiary source, which is what Wikipedia is intended to be. This is why Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sourcing. This problem is not severe enough in this article to impede on the GA criteria though, but it is something you should know when writing high quality articles! If something cannot be given context, it is generally not notable or should just contained in a table. IAWW (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Let me know if you find this feedback understandable. IAWW (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand, I was just trying to make the career section more comprehensive so it wasn't missing big chunks of his career. That is why I found it so difficult to cut the stuff above that you recommended as it included a couple of his opinions of researching the roles etc. Thank you for the advice, I appreciate it DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

"Johnny is a complex character who has been through so much, which I can't wait to explore. I've found EastEnders to be the most kind and loving space to work in, and I already feel like one of the family".: MOS:LQ IAWW (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey @It is a wonderful world:, thank you so so much for reviewing this! I have archived all the sources that can be archived, condensed the section that you recommended, removed the Daily Mirror sources and did the rest of the changes. Please let me know if there is anything else :D DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @DaniloDaysOfOurLives thanks for your many improvements. I have finished the prose review now. I hope you find my comments helpful. IAWW (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey @It is a wonderful world: Thank you so much for your comments, I have addressed them I believe by clarifying information based on the sources and your questions and other fixes. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives Nice work, passing now. I'm sure I'll see you around :) IAWW (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

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 SL93 talk 20:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Charlie Suff was the third actor to portray Johnny Carter on the BBC soap opera EastEnders in an 11-year period?

• Source:

• • ALT1: ... that actor Charlie Suff is also the lead singer of the band Third Face? Source:
  • ALT2: ... that actor Charlie Suff became friends with his EastEnders co-star Kellie Bright, who plays his onscreen mother? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ridley (Metroid)
  • Comment: Please let me know if you have any questions or if if you want to tweak anything etc.

Improved to Good Article status by DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC).

• I don't see that this article has issues as far as I see, and is in good shape. QPQ has been done. I feel like ALT2 is better, while the ALT1 is talking only about a band that isn't well-known. This seems good to go. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Changes

@Meena: has started a talk page discussion over at Talk:Pierre Counihan-Moullier over changes that have occurred to several articles by a specific user. I would usually wait for consensus before restoring, but in this case, the article was approved as a GA over the status that it was before the changes and hence I have MOS:BOLDly reverted it overwise it risks losing GA status. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The edits I'm seeing made to this page as of lately are resembling an edit war. The revision of the article that DaniloDaysOfOurLives has reverted to is the state in which (or close enough to) how it passed its GA review, therefore I believe that it how it should be kept during any ongoing dispute about filmography. Bearing that point in mind, here are my two cents on the matter - LRQ 98, you stated "This is how Filmography sections are formatted". The filmography tables shown over on WP:FILMOGRAPHY are suggestions. It is a WikiProject article, not a guideline or a strict MOS.

I always believe in following as closely to the WikiProject displays, but that does not mean we always need to separate tables into film, short film and television credits. I mean, it literally says on WP:FILMOGRAPHY: "you should make sure there is an obvious benefit to table format before creating a table for a filmography (e.g. a relatively short listing of credits for newer actors are better presented in list form, not table form)". Suff has 10 credits, which I would not put in list form, but when you separate them into separate tables, it does not warrant it, therefore one merged table is the best approach, in my opinion. As for the references, they are optional, but per WP:BURDEN, I do not believe having them to back up information is ever a bad thing. – Meena • 19:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt to frame this as a neutral clarification, but several points here need correcting for accuracy & balance.

First, the repeated invocation of the GA version as a reason to preserve a specific editor's preferred formatting is not supported by policy. GA status does not freeze an article's structure. GA reviewers assess content quality, sourcing, & broad compliance with MOS; they do not lock in table layouts or formatting choices. Using GA as a trump card in a style dispute is a misapplication of the process.

Second, if we are going to discuss edit-warring behaviour, it needs to be applied consistently. Highlighting "edit-war-like" behaviour while overlooking repeated reverts from the other party presents a selective picture of events. Edit warring is defined by conduct, not by which version one prefers.

Regarding WP:FILMOGRAPHY, you are correct that it is a WikiProject page & not binding policy - but that cuts both ways. If it is not prescriptive, then it cannot be selectively invoked to defend one specific layout while dismissing alternatives. The guideline explicitly states that editors should choose the format that best serves clarity & usefulness. With only ten credits, both a merged table & separated tables are reasonable options, which means the correct path forward is not unilateral reversion.

On references: yes, they are optional in filmography tables, & yes, sourcing is never a bad thing. But the presence or absence of optional citations is not the issue under dispute here, & raising it does not resolve the underlying disagreement about structure.

Ultimately, this is a style variation question. Per STYLEVAR, when multiple approaches are acceptable, the determining factor is consensus among editors - not the GA snapshot, not personal preference, & not selective appeals to guideline pages. LRQ 98 (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the beginning of my comment was misunderstood or brushed over, I am not saying to keep it as the GA version forever - I said (and still hold this view) that it is apt to keep the version whilst we are discussing what style is best to keep and whilst we gather a consensus. With that reclarified, I'll add my piece that I do believe the current merged table is the best approach - I have long used this filmography method for actors with fewer credits; I believe if he were to garner more credits and have a lengthier filmography, separate tables would be appropriate. On the reference front, I'm not too strong in my opinion on their removal or not, but I personally include them in most filmography tables as I see the benefits of following WP:BURDEN, even if they are sourced in the body. – Meena • 20:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand your point about keeping a stable version during discussion, but I want to emphasise that STYLEVAR applies during the discussion period as well. When multiple formats are acceptable, no single version-GA or otherwise-has priority unless consensus explicitly grants it.

The merged table may well be a reasonable option, but so are separated tables, & neither approach is inherently more "correct" for a filmography of this size. That's why the focus needs to remain on reaching consensus rather than defaulting to one version while we talk.

I'm happy to continue discussing the merits of each layout, but I don't think we should treat the current version as the provisional standard. Both structures are valid under policy, so the article shouldn't be anchored to one while consensus is still forming. LRQ 98 (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)