Talk:Rae Wilson

Rae Wilson 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 16, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
February 8, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Good article

Television: British / Hollyoaks Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Hollyoaks task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Soap Operas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Sources

Date of Death

So we can't determine a specific date (yet) but shouldn't it be September 2011 because we know that for sure? D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No point only doing it by halves though.. mays well wait until it becomes clear. I'm pretty sure when the police charge people they provide a date for when they commited the crime.RaintheOne ^BAM 23:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point but if people glance over the infobox there isn't a mention of her death and other characters e.g. Kurt Benson don't have death dates.D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They will just have to find a source for both then. lolRaintheOne ^BAM 23:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last appearance date?

It is currently stated to be the 9th of September, (the Hollyoaks Later episode), but she did appear in yesterdays/todays Hollyoaks as a dead body, so would this not be her final appearance? Though I'm not sure if it was actually Alice Barlow tha portrayed her, or if it was just a double. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Barlow was not credited - she also tweeted yesterday that it was a double and had no idea about the scene. Rae's lucky as she also appeared in the main HO episode airing on the 9th too.RaintheOne ^BAM 03:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What airing do you mean, the Channel 4 airing or the E4 first look one? Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant because when a first/last appearance is in a later episode - some people argue it should be the first/last app in a main show that counts. Rae appeared in the C4 episode on the 9th and HO Later on the 9th. She is a winner.RaintheOne ^BAM 12:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was a double it was Rae the character so shouldn't last appearance be 13th?D4nnyw14 (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No because it wasn't credited - So it cannot be added.. otherwise there would be an OR issue. Only saw her hand and hair anyway.RaintheOne ^BAM 15:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we can only add appearances if credited? She did appear wether she was credited or not and that was what the field is for.D4nnyw14 (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically yeah. It was a hand and some hair. Though I didn't make the consensus about being credited...RaintheOne ^BAM 18:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, where is the consensus?D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on guys - I'll ask a few people what they would do. Hopefully it'll give a better view then. I don't mind either way though.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"[Insert word here] done"

I noticed the edit war going on, so I though I would bring it up here. Would it be possible to find a script of the episode or something? Personally, it does sound like "well done", and thats what my Sky+ subtitles are saying (though thats not a good reference, obviously) Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You noticed did you... then you'll also notice the guy changing it is a long time vandal of HO articles who has been blocked more than 20 times. He says all done and your sky+ box is wrong.RaintheOne ^BAM 01:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can take a listen for themselves - [3]RaintheOne ^BAM 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to that user's contributions, their first edit was made at 21:17, 14 September 2011, hardly long term, unless they are sockpuppeting. Though I've noticed a rather conspicuous edit to ~~Father~~ Francis, so I'll take your word for it. But if there ends up not being any clear concensus on this, it should just be removed, it's not really needed anyway. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are a really persistant sockpuppet too. You are right though, it isn't needed and perhaps it is too much detail.RaintheOne ^BAM 02:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He signed his name on his talk page as Brianwazere so he is a sockpuppet. D4nnyw14 (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rae Wilson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 13:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I'll be conducting a full review shortly, but for now:[reply]

Referring to the subject as "Rae" is confusing. It hints at an in-universe perspective. Instead, "Wilson" should be used throughout except at the first mention and any other place where the full name is necessary. This goes for the other characters as well;
The paragraph "In 2011 Barlow won an All About Soap award for Rae's love trinagle storyline. AfterElton have criticised Hollyoaks for appearing to show no interest in developing Rae. They, along with the Sunday Mercury have bemoaned the realism of Rae chosing to stay with Ste, knowing about his homosexuality. While readers of soap opera magazine Inside Soap indicated that they did not want Silas to murder Rae." needs work. The last sentence makes no sense (grammar in particular) and the second and third do not clearly describe the point being made. More of a focus on the issue and not who would be helpful.
There are general copyediting issues, for example "Thersa [sic]", "Lauren locks her in a cupboard," and indeed most of the "Storyline" section. I suggest a Guild request or a through read-through.
Newt should be named in full on first mention.
The "Relationships" section seems to mix what their characters think with what the actors think. This needs to be clearer.

No image issues - placing article on hold. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Grandiose for chosing to review this article. I'll get to making some changes soon. Though, in reference to your first point, the request to refer to Rae as "Wilson" does not seem right - I've never come across that before nor has it ever been a requirement in any GA or FA review for fictional characters. I just looked over some featured articles and they go with the last name when mentioning actors - but stick with the characters first name throughout.RaintheOne ^BAM 14:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right. My mistake. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused, so I am requesting that you lend your hand a little here. With the reception section, how can iprove on it to make it clear? I thought it did the job of stating that Barlow won an award for her work on a storyline, Afterelton said Hollyoaks did not offer Rae much in terms of character development. They along with the Sunday Mercury said that Rae chosing to stay with a gay man was unrealistic. Inside Soap readership favoured Rae because they did not want her to be murdered by a serial killer featured in the series.

The same for the relationships section. What do I need to do - I need to know why it is not clear, so I can work on improving it. I thought it was okay, so I need telling off a little. Suggestions, thing I can do, where I can improve. I know I'm kind of asking to be "spoon fed" but I think it would fare better if I know what you like. If I got it wrong the first time, I'll be likely to do the same again.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to point 2, I'm quoting the lead. Just read aloud it a few times, or something; think of clarity and the point being put across. Relationships I'll have a look at. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Barlow later revealed that Ste would attempt to get back with Rae." - Is this better - "Barlow later revealed that Ste would attempt to reconcile his relationship with Rae."
"Rae would discover she is pregnant" - How can I make Rae finding out she is pregnant more clear?
"Barlow told Inside Soap that Mitzeee (Rachel Shenton) thinks Rae has the right to know about Ste's affair." - I don't see what isa confusing - Barlow told Inside Soap that a fellow character thought Rae had the right know about the affair. The next line explains that when she does find out, it hurts her too much. Do I need to explain why? Like because she is Ste's girlfriend she should know??
"Richardson revealed Rae would find out about their affair, adding "She's shocked and angry. She'd believed Ste when he assured her he wasn't gay and now she knows he was lying to her." - I don't know what to do there, I understand it. Richardson said Rae would find out about his affair, then states what effect it has on Rae.

I'm sorry to be a pain, I need some suggestions to make it tighter, I never went to Uni and I only got a C in my English exam. I struggle sometimes.RaintheOne ^BAM 23:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons show up in the edit window only. I don't know if you've seen them. It's not about what the sentences say, but how they say them. The presentation of the ideas. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, now I get what you mean. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 19:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Frickative carried out a big copy edit and explained things better - I think it has adressed your points.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All in order now. Passing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]