![]() | Mercedes McQueen 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Casting
Malachy
Riley/Carl
Pregnancy
Oaks later 2011
Reception
Latest Sources
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs) 03:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 04:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Prose issues
As I said above, the prose in this article is way below what it should be for a GA. Below are examples of each aspect.
I'm very worried about this article. It's almost a waste of my time to review it. It needs a complete re-write, review, and re-working of its sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 04:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I've looked at some of the improvements you've made, including your attempt at making the tone more encyclopedic by "correcting" contractions. The problem, though, is that you changed the contractions in the quotes and bracketed them. According to MOS:QUOTE, you should "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation". I suggest that you paraphrase the quotes (which are too numerous and too heavy-handed). Here's an example of rewording and paraphrasing, from the first paragraph in the "Characterisation" section:
Notice that I used present tense throughout. As I was rewriting it, I realised that for this bio, it's best because we're describing an active character. Consequently, I made sure that all references to Kirkwood and Metcalfe were also in the present tense. I changed the order of things and still used many of the quotes, but its tone is more encyclopedic. This is exactly why I think you should withdraw from GAC. You need to do similar things throughout the entire article, or find someone willing to revamp it like this.
Question: Are you sure that Metcalfe meant that Mercedes "mistreats" men? Perhaps she said "mistrusts"? Of course, I tried to look at the original but it was a chat. Is there a transcript of the chat? Chats are usually not the most reliable sources, so if you want to go further with this article, you should think about finding the same information elsewhere or striking the information. For GAC, I think it's okay, but I can tell you won't get far in FAC with it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Christine - is this the type of changes you would like to see? I can do more of the same if you think it works. Rain the 1 20:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I was waiting for you to finish your copyedit before I offered to do my own, something I often do in my GAC reviews. Be patient, though; I'm busy for the next two days and it may take me a little bit. Maybe then we can get it to GA-quality. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It took several days, but I have finally completed a copyedit of this article. I think that it now qualifies for GA, so I'll go ahead and pass it. Before I do that, I have a few issues that I'd like to bring up that won't affect its GA-status, which I'll do in a separate section. Thanks, and congrats! Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 18:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I reviewed and copyedited this article, and although it has successfully passed its GAC, there are still some recommendations I'd like to make for its improvement. The main editors can take or leave them. I highly recommend that you get another pair of eyes to further copyedit it.
Storylines
I've gone on the record in previous interactions with soap opera articles and bios regarding my feelings about "Storylines" sections. Although I've been told by editors specialising in these articles, that these sections are customary for soap articles, I think they're unnecessary, repetitive, and dependent upon WP:OR. Consequently, I recommend that the section here be removed. Doing that wouldn't affect its comprehensiveness and, IMO, improve its quality. Pauline Fowler, the only FA about a soap character and a good model for similar articles, doesn't have a "Storyline" section; I don't think this one does, either. I didn't really copyedit this section, since the major problem with the article was tense agreement issues, and it's customary to use present tense when writing about fiction in WP.
Critical response
Another major problem with this article before its GAC, and something I think I dealt with, was its unencyclopedic tone. This section is the biggest offender of that problem. For example, this sentence: She explained that even though Mercedes was "a nasty cow" because of the feud she was a "woman teetering on the verge of a massive meltdown". Personally, I have problems with any woman, fictional or not, being referred to in this way, and it definitely doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Additionally, there's only one source for most of this section, a fan writer from the Daily Mail who I don't think can be characterised as a "critic". I'm not sure her column, which is really opinion and fluff, is a reliable source.
I have a couple of ideas about how to resolve this problem. The easiest is to simply remove all of Stephen's commentary. (I don't have a problem with the first paragraph, which is from a variety of sources, but the last paragraph has the same problem, since AfterElton is basically a fan site.) My second idea is to summarise Stephen, perhaps like this: Jaci Stephens, a soap opera commentator from the Daily Mail, has regularly expressed her opinion about Mercedes' behaviour throughout several storylines. For example, Stephens stated, during Mercedes' affair with Calvin, that Mercedes was one of "the two sexiest people in Hollyoaks"[ref]. Stephen has spoken mostly disparaging towards Mercedes, calling her a "slapper", "guilty as the Pope in a brothel",[ref], a "slut"[ref], "siege victim, kidnap victim, depressive, [and] stalker".[ref] Stephen also stated, after Mercedes' kidnapping, that she had "only been in terrifying situations".[ref], and regarding the feud between Mercedes and Mitzeee, Stephens opined that while "Mercedes and Mitzeee are hardly Dynasty's Alexis and Krystle, they are enjoying quite a good spat".[ref] Stephens also analysed Mercedes' motivations behind her time in prostitution, speculated that it had to do with her own self-hatred, and asked, "...Why doesn’t she get some help before she totally and utterly loses the plot?"[ref]
I hope that this, my review, and my copyedit was helpful. Please, main editors of this article, let me know how I can be of further assistance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 19:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The characters name is now Browning, which is clearly stated in the very first line of the article lede. The E4 website corroborates that this is her corrct name - which let us not forget is the official Hollyoaks site - and as per the Manual of Style which relates to infoboxes:
(My emphasis)
There is no reason to keep insisting on the incorrect character title which is patently different to that used in the article. The article explains that McQueen was a previous name - before marriage - which explains the discrepency between the article name and infobox and name used in article space. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 07:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Mercedes McQueen 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Casting
Malachy
Riley/Carl
Pregnancy
Oaks later 2011
Reception
Latest Sources
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs) 03:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 04:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Prose issues
As I said above, the prose in this article is way below what it should be for a GA. Below are examples of each aspect.
I'm very worried about this article. It's almost a waste of my time to review it. It needs a complete re-write, review, and re-working of its sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 04:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I've looked at some of the improvements you've made, including your attempt at making the tone more encyclopedic by "correcting" contractions. The problem, though, is that you changed the contractions in the quotes and bracketed them. According to MOS:QUOTE, you should "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation". I suggest that you paraphrase the quotes (which are too numerous and too heavy-handed). Here's an example of rewording and paraphrasing, from the first paragraph in the "Characterisation" section:
Notice that I used present tense throughout. As I was rewriting it, I realised that for this bio, it's best because we're describing an active character. Consequently, I made sure that all references to Kirkwood and Metcalfe were also in the present tense. I changed the order of things and still used many of the quotes, but its tone is more encyclopedic. This is exactly why I think you should withdraw from GAC. You need to do similar things throughout the entire article, or find someone willing to revamp it like this.
Question: Are you sure that Metcalfe meant that Mercedes "mistreats" men? Perhaps she said "mistrusts"? Of course, I tried to look at the original but it was a chat. Is there a transcript of the chat? Chats are usually not the most reliable sources, so if you want to go further with this article, you should think about finding the same information elsewhere or striking the information. For GAC, I think it's okay, but I can tell you won't get far in FAC with it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Christine - is this the type of changes you would like to see? I can do more of the same if you think it works. Rain the 1 20:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I was waiting for you to finish your copyedit before I offered to do my own, something I often do in my GAC reviews. Be patient, though; I'm busy for the next two days and it may take me a little bit. Maybe then we can get it to GA-quality. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It took several days, but I have finally completed a copyedit of this article. I think that it now qualifies for GA, so I'll go ahead and pass it. Before I do that, I have a few issues that I'd like to bring up that won't affect its GA-status, which I'll do in a separate section. Thanks, and congrats! Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 18:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I reviewed and copyedited this article, and although it has successfully passed its GAC, there are still some recommendations I'd like to make for its improvement. The main editors can take or leave them. I highly recommend that you get another pair of eyes to further copyedit it.
Storylines
I've gone on the record in previous interactions with soap opera articles and bios regarding my feelings about "Storylines" sections. Although I've been told by editors specialising in these articles, that these sections are customary for soap articles, I think they're unnecessary, repetitive, and dependent upon WP:OR. Consequently, I recommend that the section here be removed. Doing that wouldn't affect its comprehensiveness and, IMO, improve its quality. Pauline Fowler, the only FA about a soap character and a good model for similar articles, doesn't have a "Storyline" section; I don't think this one does, either. I didn't really copyedit this section, since the major problem with the article was tense agreement issues, and it's customary to use present tense when writing about fiction in WP.
Critical response
Another major problem with this article before its GAC, and something I think I dealt with, was its unencyclopedic tone. This section is the biggest offender of that problem. For example, this sentence: She explained that even though Mercedes was "a nasty cow" because of the feud she was a "woman teetering on the verge of a massive meltdown". Personally, I have problems with any woman, fictional or not, being referred to in this way, and it definitely doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Additionally, there's only one source for most of this section, a fan writer from the Daily Mail who I don't think can be characterised as a "critic". I'm not sure her column, which is really opinion and fluff, is a reliable source.
I have a couple of ideas about how to resolve this problem. The easiest is to simply remove all of Stephen's commentary. (I don't have a problem with the first paragraph, which is from a variety of sources, but the last paragraph has the same problem, since AfterElton is basically a fan site.) My second idea is to summarise Stephen, perhaps like this: Jaci Stephens, a soap opera commentator from the Daily Mail, has regularly expressed her opinion about Mercedes' behaviour throughout several storylines. For example, Stephens stated, during Mercedes' affair with Calvin, that Mercedes was one of "the two sexiest people in Hollyoaks"[ref]. Stephen has spoken mostly disparaging towards Mercedes, calling her a "slapper", "guilty as the Pope in a brothel",[ref], a "slut"[ref], "siege victim, kidnap victim, depressive, [and] stalker".[ref] Stephen also stated, after Mercedes' kidnapping, that she had "only been in terrifying situations".[ref], and regarding the feud between Mercedes and Mitzeee, Stephens opined that while "Mercedes and Mitzeee are hardly Dynasty's Alexis and Krystle, they are enjoying quite a good spat".[ref] Stephens also analysed Mercedes' motivations behind her time in prostitution, speculated that it had to do with her own self-hatred, and asked, "...Why doesn’t she get some help before she totally and utterly loses the plot?"[ref]
I hope that this, my review, and my copyedit was helpful. Please, main editors of this article, let me know how I can be of further assistance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 19:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The characters name is now Browning, which is clearly stated in the very first line of the article lede. The E4 website corroborates that this is her corrct name - which let us not forget is the official Hollyoaks site - and as per the Manual of Style which relates to infoboxes:
(My emphasis)
There is no reason to keep insisting on the incorrect character title which is patently different to that used in the article. The article explains that McQueen was a previous name - before marriage - which explains the discrepency between the article name and infobox and name used in article space. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 07:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)