# Talk:Wellard

I just got into an edit war with WJH1992 but cannot revert again as I have already done so three times within 24 hours. Wellard, although a recurring character, like Tracy and Winston, has never left the show, therefore "1994—" is preferable to "1994–1995, 1996–1997, 1998–1999, 2000–2001, 2002–2003, 2004–2005, 2006—" or whatever. Any other opinions? anemoneIprojectors 16:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so I reverted.Gungadin♦ 16:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Something that I find rather interesting is that Wellard's (eventually fatal) illness is discovered immediately after Bianca notices a box of chocolates has gone missing, with noone admitting to having eaten them. Given that chocolate can be extremely toxic to dogs, producing similar symptoms to what Wellard suffered, I'm wondering if it was an intentional implication that Wellard had stolen and eaten said chocolates, leading to his death. Xmoogle (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it would die that quickly after eating them. Also Ian was talking about the demise of Marsala Masood on the phone when that ginger brat overheard him, he didn't kill Wellard. UNI|SOUTH  16:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this word have a slang meaning in English? (Which the rest of the world wouldn't know) --IceHunter (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as the article says: "Robbie named him Wellard (short for "well hard", meaning "very tough")." AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wellard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 21:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


### Quick fail criteria assessment
Reviewing the article against the "quick-fail criteria".

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 - the article is well sourced with a wide array of reference material.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 - no obvious NPOV tone to article.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 - no tags on page.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 - no edit warring over article.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 - scope of article clear.
Article meets standards set out in the "quick-fail criteria", with no obvious issues or problems evident. Full review will now follow. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 21:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


### Main review
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
Well written. Prose is concise and flows. Paragraphs well structured and developed. No fragments or stand-alone sentences. 
b (MoS):
Conforms to manual of style. 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
Well referenced. No broken links. Citation templates correctly formated. 
b (citations to reliable sources):
Citations are to third party publications. References reflect a range of sources. 
c (OR):
No evidence of OR. 
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
Addresses major aspect of article subject matter. 
b (focused):
Remains focused. No digressions. 
It follows the neutral point of view policy:

No issues concerning POV evident. 
It is stable:
No edit wars etc. 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
Images are properly tagged and justified. 
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images are accompanied by contextual captions.

Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass 
I was a little dubious this could be done, but have been proved wrong. The article is a well presented, informative piece on a very easily overlooked subject. Congratulations! ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 21:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review, Junipers Liege, it's much appreciated! Frickative 23:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it will allow us to add anything to this article but there is a documentary on BBC Four at pm on Tuesday 2 March about TV animals and Wellard will be included. I can't get BBC Four but might check is out on iPlayer if I remember. anemoneprojectors│talk 16:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooh I forgot about it, good stuff Frickative! Is it worth watching? anemoneprojectors talk 20:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I wouldn't really recommend it! There's only about five minutes of Wellard, and most of that is just clips from old episodes. Bit of an interview with Kyte's owner, but she didn't really say much beyond what's in the article now. Thanks for posting about it though, I'd never have heard of it otherwise! Frickative 20:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I saw it in The Sun's TV guide going through the features as there was a big picture of Robbie and Wellard. I might watch the Wellard bit on iPlayer, since you've given the timing of it :) I'm glad it gave some new things to add, cos I didn't expect it to. anemoneprojectors talk 20:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

These characters are the same as Winston and Shrimpy. They have not done enough in their own right.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by James4pk (talk • contribs) 16:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC) 

They have SIGCOV and thus they meet the nobility requirements for their own pages due to the amount of coverage they have received. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)