Talk:The Bill

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	The Bill 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 December 7, 2009 Good article nominee Listed August 16, 2012 Good article reassessment Kept November 18, 2024 Good article reassessment Kept Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 16, 2010, October 16, 2014, and October 16, 2020. Current status: Good article

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

London Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: The Bill / British Mid‑importance 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.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Bill task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by HJ Mitchell, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Sun Hill was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 08 July 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into The Bill. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives

2006 2008 July 2010 September 2010 October 2010 March 2012 May 2012 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 January 2016

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Bill/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I think the article fails criteria #2 of the GAC as there are quite a few broken links and unverified facts in the article. I tagged these a while ago so they should be pretty easy to find.

In addition I do not believe that the article is written sufficiently well to meet criteria #1 to warrant being listed as a good article. --Deadly∀ssassin 17:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will read over the article a little later when I have more time to try and fix the broken links.--5 albert square (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links fixed.--5 albert square (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the citations referenced now, I will do the rest over the weekend if nobody else does them--5 albert square (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, some more of the citations referenced, going to ask User:JuneGloom07 if she can help with the outstanding ones.--5 albert square (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking into this. I'm having trouble sourcing the bit about the Ford Sierra, I'm referring to a Geoff Tibballs book I have on the history of Sun Hill. Going to look at this over the next day or so in the hope I can reference it in this book. If not I'll come back and have a re-think.--5 albert square (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK everyone, not forgotten about this, just been a bit busy and been unable to source some references particularly for them using a Ford Sierra. I've actually ordered a book from Amazon in the hope that this will help out. At the end of the day if it doesn't source the Sierra then it may be able to help with other parts of the article. Please bear with me whilst I try and source these, once I'm certain whether or not I can get a source I can then see about the writing of the article.--5 albert square (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It would have been courteous of the initiator to notify the editors who brought the article to GA status, and to have raised these issues on the talk page instead of going for the jugular. Our names are even listed on the talk page for that specific purpose, so I'm disappointed that such basic due diligence wasn't done. However, now I'm aware of it, I will look into the issues over the coming days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, which many other editers have said, but if your trying to promote this to GA; get rid of the tags by adding sources as well as dont leave blank url's at the bottom of the reflist. — M.Mario (T/C) 18:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean Mario. We're not trying to promote it to GA, it is already a GA, has been for the last couple of years. It's being re-assessed. As I've said previously I'm trying to find sources for it but it's proving hard. HJ have you received my emails regarding this?--5 albert square (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been under reassessment for a long time now. Are we any closer to getting a result? AIRcorn (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review appears to have been abandoned. Closing as kept. AIRcorn (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because there are several uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Is anyone interested in addressing this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These lists were removed from the article as they were unsourced. I thought I would place them here to give someone the chance to maybe rework the info and source them. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following actors appeared in the show at least once.

Some guest parts were also played by guest actors who were already well known when they appeared, including:

surely this should read that The Bill "was" instead of "is"? It's not on TV anymore, there's no new episodes since 2010 so it's not current. 77.103.180.238 (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct to use "is" since The Bill is a work of fiction. The show may no longer be in production but it still exists. I can watch a repeat on television or clips online.Rain the 1 20:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't ceased to be a television show. See MOS:TVLEAD. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]