Talk:Mercedes McQueen

Left-overs from GAC
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)


 * Thanks for these points, i think Jaci Stephen is definitely reliable, she is a journalist for the Daily Mail and not just a fan writer, she includes a lot of opinion but the Daily Mail on a whole is quite opinionated. Which part do you think is not encyclopedic, the nasty cow comment or the break down? I don't see a problem with either as it's only the opinion of one journalist. D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Using Stephen so much is certainly a violation of WP:UNDUE, which is why I suggested the above revision. Re: the Daily Mail, there has been discussion about if it should be considered a reliable source .  One thing for sure, I think, it and Stephen's column is unencyclopedic in tone.  My answer to your question is, almost everything.  I suppose you could include that Stephen thought that Mercedes was on the brink of a nervous breakdown.  But D4, this entire discussion verges on the frustrating for me.  I've mentioned the importance of tone in writing for WP, and you don't seem to understand what I mean.  I searched for a definition in MOS, but the concept is throughout the entire long document.  Tone is about a high level of discourse and writing.  It's how we refer to people and things.  It's about being neutral (WP:NPOV) and word-choice (WP:W2W.  I'm not sure it's something you can teach; it's something you get with writing experience, which is certainly something you can gain here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, i'll cut down on the ammount of Stephen material used. The quote about Mercy being a nasty cow and the breakdown is actually from an All About Soap critic, not Stephen. I don't know what you mean about the tone, what am i doing wrong? D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox name
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)
 * The template should have a large, bold title line. Either a table caption or a header can be used for this. It should be named the common name of the article's subject but may contain the full (official) name; this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title, but falling back to use that (with the magic word) is usually fine. It should not contain a link.

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)