# Talk:Mercedes McQueen

Casting

[1] - Metcalfe pledges future to HO
Malachy

[2] - HIV
[3] - Mercy finds out she does not have HIV
[4] - What's on TV interview
[5] - Mal slaps Mercy
Riley/Carl

[6] - Mercy vs Ruby
[7] - affair
[8] - Wedding filming
Pregnancy

[9] - Fake miscarriage
[10] - Fight whilst pregnant
[11] - Metcalfe hates baby bump
Oaks later 2011

[12] DS Metcalfe interview part one
[13] DS Metcalfe interview part 2
Reception

[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] - Taking the mickey out of Mercy
[19] - Mercedes needs riot geer.
[20] - Mercedes needs to do what her name suggests
[21] - Mercy only talks to men to break up or undress
[22]
[23] - Mercy likes to keep it in the family.
[24] - It doesn't matter who puts the ring on Mercy's finger.RaintheOne BAM 00:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is some new Reception - The Daily Mail stick the boot into Mercedes again. [25]Rain the 1 19:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
[26] - Here is some receptionRain the 1 01:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Latest Sources

[27] - Reception.Rain the 1 12:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mercedes McQueen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 03:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The prose in this article is no where near the level of a GA-quality article.  It contains grammatical errors throughout, it is unencyclopedic in tone, and it reads choppy.  See below for examples of each.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
While it's common practice to not include citations in the lead, it's good practice to include them for quotes.  When I did a cursory ref check, I found that refs 1, 3, and 4 directed me to a page that said, "Invalid URL", so I stopped there.  Please go through your links and make sure they work.  There seems to be no OR, but I can't validate with the broken links.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
This is one of my many problems with this article.  It seems too focused, which is something I've found in many soap character bios.  This article seems like a compilation of everything that's ever been written about Mercedes, or at least everything the main editor could find.  Remember, WP articles are summaries of the sources.  Personally, I have issues with the "Storylines" section and think it's repetitive, but I've been assured that it's standard in articles like this.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
POV seems neutral.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
It looks like one main editor has contributed the most, with little vandalism and edit warring.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Nice job finding free images.  I wonder if it's possible to include more, like of the actors mentioned.  Please disregard if this isn't possible.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I would fail this article off-hand, due to the prose and ref issues, but I'll give you a chance to improve this article.  I recommend that you allow this FAC to fail, even though it's languished here for months, copyedit and improve it, and then resubmit it.
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.

Grammatical and spelling errors:
She went onto say that Mercedes "alaways looks after her family and would never do anything to deliberately hurt them. (In Characterisation section.)
She added that she had gotten used to Mercede's "ways" commenting that nothing Mercedes does shocks her.  This is a problem throughout; the correct form of a possessive proper name ending in "es" (such as "Mercedes") is Mercedes'.
The Russ Owens section is full of tense agreement errors.  Example: Metcalfe commented that she thought the wedding "didn't go smoothly" but added that "[Mercedes] wedding to Russ was great because it was her first".  Warren is accused of attempting to murder Clare.  I realize that you're talking about the storyline and Metcalfe's views of it after it aired, but pick a tense and stay consistent.  (I recommend the past tense.)
Unencyclopedic tone:
In the lead: In 2008 Metcalfe feared that the character was to be axed but was later reassured by the series producer that she wouldn't be.  An encyclopedia does not use contractions in its prose, see WP:MOS.  You do this throughout the article.
Characterisation section: The first paragraph is basically a grouping of quotes by Kirkwood and Metcalfe about Mercedes.  I suggest that you reword it to sound more formal and summarise what they say.
Choppy-ness:
This was easy to find examples of; here's one from the first sentences after the lead: Mercedes was created by Bryan Kirkwood as part of a new family, the McQueens. She was the first character he created during his time as executive producer. Actress Jennifer Metcalfe successfully auditioned for the role with Kirkwood citing her as making the character her own. He opined that Metcalfe brought Mercedes to life. Metcalfe was originally considered for the role of Clare Devine (Gemma Bissix) before Mercedes was created.  These sentences don't flow at all.  This occurs throughout, and is one of the reasons you need to get this article copyedited.
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)

Thanks for the review and for not instantly failing the article. I'll begin working through what i can fix. D4nnyw14 (talk) 10:45, 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:

Kirkwood describes Mercedes as "a savvy, ballsy girl that can't say no and is unapologetic about it".  Metcalfe describes Mercedes as someone who talks too much, and other than her own sisters, as someone who "hates every woman in Hollyoaks".  Metcalfe insists that Mercedes is protective of and cares for her family, and although she makes mistakes, makes bad choices, and is impulsive, her "heart is definitely in the right place".  Regarding Mercedes' inability to be happy, Melcalfe has said,  "She has moments of happiness but ruins them herself".  Mercedes does not mean to "destroy everything", but instead justifies her behaviour and fails to consider the consequences of her actions.  As Melcalfe says, "She's used to getting her own way and thinks that no matter what she does, everything will turn out right in the end".  Metcalfe states that the reason for Mercedes' low self-worth is that her first love "messed her up", so she mistreats men.  Although Mercedes is at her best being "minxy and destructive", Metcalfe wished that Mercedes could be happy "free and single".  Metcalfe also states that Mercedes becomes disappointed with herself when she tries to change but finds that she's unable to: "When she says that she's going to change, she actually means it - she just can't sustain it!"
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)

Hi Rain, it certainly is better.  There are some choices I would've made differently, but it's closer to what I mean.  For example, is "she jibes Carl" a Britishicism or is it a colloquialism?  Metcalfe believed that this behaviour was typical of Mercedes - Malachy had died and rather than "moping" about she chooses to get on with her life.: I'm not sure the tone here is right.  Firstly, the tenses don't match, not just here but throughout the paragraph.  "Moping about" is definitely lower in tone.  This is what I would've done with it: According to Metcalfe, this kind of behaviour is typical for Mercedes; Malachy had died, and rather than "moping", she chooses to "get on with her life. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought that jibing/gibing someone is the act of mocking someone. The tense change is always tricky - Metcalfe stated her opinion in the past, it could have changed so I used past tense as it was true at the time. I did not think I was able to write "Metcalfe explains, says, thinks, states" - or am I? Present tense obviously plays in when discussing the fictional element because it can be watched over etc. So how do we find the middle ground?Rain the 1 22:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not one to quibble over words, especially if it's used there in Britain more often than in the U.S.  I think that you are able to use those verbs; Pauline Fowler's article does.  Again, I think it's an excellent model.  You also don't have to necessarily attribute every quote directly.  Rain, every article presents its own challenges; bio and character articles has this one.  It takes creativity and ingenuity to deal with them.  Oh, and assistance from helpful fellow editors. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what i can do about the contractions, leave them and make the quotations unpresevered or change them back and make it unencyclopedic by having contractions. Some of them might be able to be paraphrased but others might not be able too. I'll try to sort the tenses out, i can probably get around some of the quotes being in past tense by saying something like "Reflecting on the event, Metcalfe said..." About the mistreats men, what was actually said was "why she is the way she is where men are concerned", which i took to mean why she mistreats men but it could be mistrusts men, i'll change it to that quote as it could be interpreted any way, that's why i don't want to start paraphrasing everything, i could misinterpret things. D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
When you quote someone, according to MOS, you need to retain the original, even if the person is speaking informally.  Personally, I like using the phrase "According to Metcalfe..." but that could get repetitive.  It's obvious that she's going to talk about storyline events after the fact in interviews, so with some creativity, you can get around it.  I recommend that you take a look at Pauline Fowler, the only soap character that's an FA.  That article isn't perfect, but it fits the criteria of a well-written article, including its high tone and prose quality.  There's a fine line between over-quoting and misinterpreting.  There are those around who can help you with it, though.  A good rule of thumb is that if your paraphrase leads to misunderstanding, either change the paraphrase or use the direct quote.  It's also a good idea to quote when you're unclear what the person means.  I think this quote is unclear, so I think it's best to quote her directly, unless she explains herself later on, of course.  You could say, Metcalfe states that the reason for Mercedes' low self-worth is that her first love "messed her up", and is also "why she is the way she is where men are concerned". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll change anything that i've changed back to the origina lsource material. I will try to vary the use of intros to quotes. In you're suggestions you keep linking things that aren't directly linked, especially if there from two different sources, for example you said 'Metcalfe states that the reason for Mercedes' low self-worth is that her first love "messed her up", and is also "why she is the way she is where men are concerned". but she doesn't say that the reason for her characters low self worth is linked to her first love, they are two complete separate quotes that refer to two different things and linking them would be original resource as we can only guess that they are linked. D4nnyw14 (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I didn't include the sources with my rewrite above; it was meant to be an example.  Of course you would cite the sources, sometimes in the middle of the sentence.  If two concepts are related, go ahead and connect them, even if they're from two different sources.  I connected Mercedes' low self-esteem and her behaviour around men because that's what it seemed like in the original version.  She had low self-esteem because of her first love, so she mistreats men.  If that's not the case, then say that clearly.  If she mistreats men because of her bad experiences with love, and not because of her low self-esteem, say that. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to connect the concepts if they seem related but i'll make sure not to connect random points, it should help the article flow better too. D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I've attempted to copy edit it, but it doesn't seem to have improved much. What areas do you think have bad prose? Can you give me some examples? D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:46, 16 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)

Thanks, that'd be great! That's fine, i'm in no rush with the review. D4nnyw14 (talk) 17:21, 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)

Thank you for providing the copy edit and for the pass. D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:33, 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)

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 [28].  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)

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:

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 {{PAGENAME}} magic word) is usually fine. It should not contain a link.
(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)