Talk:Rachel Amber

This article may need to be rewritten to conform to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards

Hello Greenish Pickle!! Could you please provide some details, what you think needs to be rewritten in which regard as the one who tagged the article? That would be helpful. What does anyone else think? Daranios (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey Daranios, I saw the article being sent to GAN. It should combine or expand the single paragraph sections, at the very least the ones that are just one sentence. Plus, maybe fix some of the refbombings cites. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 21:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I submitted the GAN too early. Should I pull it and come back? Or can I work on improving it with other editors while it is being submitted? @Daranios:. @Greenish Pickle!:.

This is my first GA submission. So I'm open to any tips. Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You can work it during GAN GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax: I think the big issue I'd have with the GAN is that you hadn't really edited in a while, and things may have changed. Did you review the article to make sure that it's up to GA standards? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 08:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The rewrite template recently attached to the article is correct, in my opinion, enough that the issue prevents a GA pass at this time. As it stands, much of the article is composed of lengthy quotes, which is not a good way to write encyclopedic prose. Quoting should be used to supplement encyclopedic text, not to replace it. Although it is an essay, WP:Overquote provides some useful direction on this - generally you want to reserve quoting for the most interesting and/or difficult-to-reword phrases.

As an experiment, I edited the article to remove all of the quotes, then compared the word count before and after. With quotes, it's ~1700; without, it's ~1100. If you don't count the ~200 word lead (which contains no quoted material, and is a summary of the body anyway), that's 600 of 1500 words or nearly 40% of the body of the article made up of quotes. The article must be rewritten to appropriately paraphrase its sources before it can pass the GACR.

Although it is not on the GACR, I would suggest condensing the sections under "Fictional biography", perhaps to "Original game" and "Additional games and media". Also noticed that you have two instances of 4+ citations (reception to Chloe & Rachel's relationship and fridging of Rachel). It's very rare to need more than 3 citations for a single point. I would suggest removing the least significant of those references, and/or expanding the content to justify the content (in other words, where you have one sentence, you could expand to have three and move some of the citations to support the expanded content). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war

As an observer, I'd like to suggest @QuestFour:, @CMJ2:, to stop edit-warring. I personally suggest we use QuestFour's image choice. It was what the image was before this edit by CMJ2. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 19:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I do apologize. The image I'm trying to use is the depiction of the character in the original game. CMJ2 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Is File:RachelAmberLIS.png not also from the game? You have no reason to change the photo, nor tried any dispute resolutions and instead edit warred. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 19:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

File:RachelAmberLIS.png comes from the prequel, not the original game. My intent was to use an image that reflects the character’s depiction in the original release, in respect to the original developers’ work. CMJ2 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't stricly need to follow game-to-face. Leon S. Kennedy's is using a promotional image of the character when the game its for isn't out yet; Widowmaker (Overwatch) has her Overwatch 1 design, even though we entered season 20 of Overwatch 2 this month; the list goes on. The intent of the image (especially with a non-free image) is to depict the character clearly to the reader because words can't. Both images succeed in that regard, but I personally find yours worse because it is much more cropped.

I haven't played this series, nor am I a master of copyright, but I do think this is a worthless edit war that could've been solved with just an edit summery. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 20:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

You’re right that Wikipedia doesn’t require the infobox image to be from a character’s first or original appearance (per MOS:LEADIMAGE, the primary goal is clear identification of the subject).

That said, for Rachel Amber specifically, the original Life Is Strange (developed by Dontnod) deliberately presents her as a mysterious figure who never appears in person and players come to know her exclusively through in-world photos, posters, and descriptions. The missing person-poster portrait (RachelLIS1.png) from that game is one of the most prominent, repeated, and recognizable depictions, and it is how many players are first introduced to her as the central enigma of the plot.

The image (File:RachelAmberLIS.png) originates from the prequel Before the Storm (developed by Deck Nine). While it shows the character clearly, the in-world poster/photo from the original game may better reflect how the character is framed and “experienced” in the title that established her. Since this ultimately involves subjective judgment about which image best serves readers unfamiliar with the series, I’m fine leaving things as they are for now or seeking additional input (e.g., from WikiProject Video games). CMJ2 (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

As stated here, the prior image depicts the character physically as opposed to in a polaroid. QuestFour (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

However, that’s precisely what makes the missing-poster portrait (not just a Polaroid, it’s its own separate photo, which also originally features another popular character but has been cropped) so fitting for this article’s subject. In the original Life Is Strange (the game that created and established Rachel as an iconic character), Dontnod’s co-director, Michel Koch, has stated that they intentionally designed her as a “mysterious character that you never see” in person, building her presence entirely through descriptions, photos, and those ubiquitous missing posters (which players encounter repeatedly throughout Arcadia Bay and Blackwell).

The poster image (with the blue feather earring, etc.) is thus the primary and most recognizable visual depiction from the title in which she is the central driving force and mystery—it’s how the vast majority of players first (and only) “meet” her in the debut game.

The prequel’s direct appearances are excellent for showing her personality in full, but for identifying the character as she was introduced in the series’ origin, the iconic poster photo aligns more closely with the developers’ original intent. CMJ2 (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

What you're describing is the character's role in the first game; when we have a game with the character in question appearing in it, however, this takes precedence. QuestFour (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree that direct on-screen appearances (as in Before the Storm) can be a strong basis for the infobox image, especially for clear identification.

However, since Rachel was introduced and defined in the original Life Is Strange as a character players never physically see—only through in-world posters, photos, and dialogue—the missing-person poster photo (currently in the infobox) better captures her core portrayal and the developers’ intent in the series’ foundational entry. It’s not just a matter of chronological priority; it’s diegetic and central to her narrative role.

That said, if you or others feel strongly about switching back to the prequel portrait for accessibility reasons, we could ping WikiProject Video games to get more input and settle it properly. I’m open to whatever the broader community thinks serves readers best. CMJ2 (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the latter should help reach a consensus. In the meantime, it would also be helpful if you'd self-revert to the status quo version, as per WP:BRD. QuestFour (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

As per WP:EDITCON, I've restored the long-standing, pre-edit war version until consensus is determined. CMJ2, you're free to go ahead as you suggested and inquire input from WikiProject Video games. You could also start a WP:RFC as per WP:DR. QuestFour (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

QuestFour, I've now posted a neutral request for input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games → "Input requested: Infobox image for Rachel Amber (Life Is Strange)". See here.

I've also restored the poster image portrait (from the original Life Is Strange) in the meantime, as it best represents Rachel's foundational, mysterious portrayal in the series' debut game.

I have no intention of edit-warring further and will respect whatever consensus emerges from the project or a future RfC if needed. You're welcome to add your thoughts there or here in the meantime.

Thanks! CMJ2 (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You've had over a week to respond, but did not chose to do so until immediately after your version was removed. Until there's consensus for the latter, the pre-edit war should not be removed. If you continue to reinsert non-consensus edits you will be reported at WP:AN3. QuestFour (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

QuestFour, I have restored the missing-person poster image again, as it best represents Rachel Amber's original depiction in Life Is Strange.

Yes, it has been over a week since your 21 December message, and I apologize for the delay in responding. I have real-life commitments outside Wikipedia that prevent immediate replies (especially over the past week), so there was no ill intent. However, I did not revert until after posting a neutral request for input at WikiProject Video games on 29 December (before my revert), and I committed on the talk page to respecting consensus.

There has been multiple reverts on both sides. To avoid edit warring or risking WP:3RR for either of us, I will make no further changes to the infobox and will abide by consensus reached via WikiProject Video games or an RfC.

The input request is open at WikiProject Video games. Please feel free to add your perspective there or here. If no responses appear within a day or so, we can start a formal RfC.

If the page becomes unstable, we can seek admin guidance at WP:AN3 to stabilize it until broader input arrives.

Cheers! CMJ2 (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Here from WT:VG requesting opinions between which image to use. The image of Rachel from Life Is Strange: Before the Storm is so much better and of higher quality than the one from the original game that I'm shocked this is a debate. It's a debate between either an actual proper depiction of the character or an ugly, close-up head shot. Who cares if the missing person poster is more iconic? It's not a better depiction that helps identify the character. λ NegativeMP1 21:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, NegativeMP1.

I've self-reverted to the prequel image accordingly. Appreciate the input.

Cheers! CMJ2 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't quite agree the first one is "ugly" - it's a competent artwork that could easily be used instead, but Wikipedia goes towards whatever will help readers the most in a single image. The one from the sequel is unequivocally more helpful given that it's a bust image rather than just her face, and not at an odd angle. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Zxcvbnm. Much appreciated. CMJ2 (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)