# Talk:Jane Harris (Neighbours)

Jane did not pass-away. I removed this disimfomation. See the offical Nieghbours fan site.
--86.29.243.78 04:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I've not heard of her death either. I have been to the- "A perfect blend" fan sigt to.
--86.29.240.65 02:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protect the artical due to a resent and dliberate mis-imformation/smear campainge conducted against Jane Harris on the artical page. 
--Strento 02:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
She was born in 1969, and thus is age is 39.
--86.25.55.49 (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Could a better picture be created, this one looks rather unflatering. It's POV because it makes her look ugly and anorexic, which she was not. She got over her dieting problem early on in her story line, so it is a inapropriate shot to use on that sergeststs otherwise!--Its snowing in East Asia (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you being serious? That's your opinion, it's a free image. This isn't some fansite making Jane Harris & Annie Jones look beautiful, any other image would be the same, no point replacing it. Besides that is a picture of Jane a couple of years in...RAIN the ONE (Talk) 19:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The image is fine, it is simply showing Annie Jones as her character. It has nothing to do with eating disorders. - JuneGloom07  Talk?  21:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The comment on Lucy's lipstick was joke, but Gail's image appeared to be squashed in and Jane/ Annie Jones  looked unwell. Jane's prevose 4 pictures from 2007 onwards were bad since she looked smug or overly shy in them. The now deleted -Image:Jane Harris Neigh.jpg- as on page  and near by ones, was the photo that made here look overly shy and overly smug in it‘s permutations and variants that other users deleted. --Its snowing in East Asia (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not even an issue now. Removing the pointless ref list aswell. I would however, sugguest, that you should read through the image policies... the manual of style guide for help making constructive edits to improving the article. Happy editing.RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 20:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jane Harris (Neighbours)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   19:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I could almost speedy pass this, because it's obvious that a lot of hard work has gone into it but there are a few minor issues (which I'll detail below), that should be easy to fix and not essential points from a GA perspective. 

prose
Lots of sentences start with "Jane", making the prose sound quite repetitive. I'd suggest going through it and trying to vary the sentence structure a little. Done

refs
The Times is published by Times Newspapers Ltd; News International is the owner Done
The Independent was published by Independent News & Media in 2008 (it was sold in 2009 or 2010) Done
The Guardian is published by Guardian News and Media, GMG is the owner Done
Why is Orange UK in italics? Done
Your date formats  are all over the place. You're using both DMY and YMD. Pick one, and stick with it Done

Once you've made a dent in it, I should be able to pass it for you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   19:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Thankyou for taking on the review. :) I've done the tasks you stated. I removed much of the usage of her name, it was a little overkill. I wasn't happy with the reception section, so I had a go at tightening the prose a little. Tweaked the storylines to, just incase it seemed a little wordy.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 01:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Works for me. you should probably unpipe those publisher links per WP:R2D, but meh. Nice piece of work you've got here and I'm happy to pass it now the above has been sorted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   01:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jane Harris (Neighbours). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5v50wsnMu?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftvweek.ninemsn.com.au%2Farticle.aspx%3Fid%3D63357 to http://tvweek.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=63357
Corrected formatting/usage for http://tv.uk.msn.com/photos/photos.aspx?cp-documentid=153145281&amp%3Bpage=36
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we need one? She has changed a bit over the years. 5 albert square (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I can ask Rain for one, although I think the current one should be kept too. It shows how she looked for a longer part of her duration and is kinda touched upon in the article, as it's post-makeover. Maybe the newer image could be added to the infobox and the older one moved to the characterisation section, kinda like Susan Kennedy? Or the newer one could be placed in the return section? - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
We could also move the current image to the bottom of the Infobox? I have no idea what year that image is from so maybe it could have the caption "Jane as she appeared in the 1980s"? 5 albert square (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I find that that clogs the ibox. I reckon have a new image and do what June suggested, move it down into the characterisation as there is info about her appearance there. I have a new image I can upload, and I can update the rationale on the old one! — Hatio93 Talk 12:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, another thing I forgot to add, as a general observation usually if a second image is added to the ibox, the character has been portrayed by another person. But in this case Jane hasn't. I have gathered a screenshot ready to go in... I can add it once a decision has been reached! — Hatio93 Talk 13:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
As there have been no other comments, yes please Hatio93.  Do you know how to do it?--5 albert square (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
All done 5 albert square! Wasn't expecting the image to be that large when I uploaded it, but a bot will reduce it in a few days! — Hatio93 Talk 02:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This article contains an instance of unsubstantiated soap boxing. The character of Jane had a 'make-over' in the 1980s, but never 'acted thick'. The episodes contain no evidence of this at all. And what a surprise - the claim contains no substantiating links! Whether or not these links exist, the episodes speak for themselves. Wikipedia is a worrying place.
(86.145.106.171 (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC))