Talk:Todd Manning/GA3

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I have made a few minor copy-edits for grammar and style.
 * Some remaining clumsy phrases and repetitive turns of phrase do not aid the flow
 * These features contrasted well to the character's mouth, which was cited as pouty and sensual and conferring "a charming, boyish quality". These attributes could sometimes be misinterpreted as Todd being less dangerous than he actually was. - These features - These attributes
 * The cut was significantly smaller than the original but placed in the same spot. Despite the cut being viewed as "a poetic nod" to Todd's history, it was gone by January 2009. The cut - the cut
 * In addition to having Todd risk his freedom from prison to instead save Marty from a car crash, the writers had him go as far as to donate his own blood to Marty to ensure that she survives the wreck. A year later, he risks his life to save Patrick from death, who is Marty's lover at the time; this act leads to Todd's presumed death.'' - Change of tense
 * Powerful archetypes were drawn out, such as the fight between good and evil, reminiscent of nineteenth-century melodrama, where critique would be given to "power relations, especially the oppression of the poor by the rich and of women by men". - Powerful archetypes were drawn out... rather clumsy
 * ' 'Certain plot points were presented to further demonstrate this. One plot point includes Todd attempting to rape Marty for a second time.'' - Certain is a rather vague word in this context, repetitive "plot point"
 * Malone and Horgan started Todd's transition into a more well-rounded character with their second transition of Powell. transition repeated.
 * They had Powell attempt suicide and soon confess to raping Marty. Soon?
 * He is publicly forgiven by Marty herself, which enrages Todd when he and fellow rapist Zach receive eight-year sentences behind prison compared to Powell's three months of jail time. ''behind prison?
 * Todd sets out to attack the currently blind Nora. currently blind?
 *  During the same moment, John McBain rushes in declaring Todd's innocence.  - During the same moment?
 * I recommend a thorough copy-edit to improve the prose, for grammar, style and clarity. You may be able to get help at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I still recommend this as the prose could do with more work, but I judge it now "reasonable enough.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No dead links.
 * Ref #23 "Harris, Marg. One Life to Live music history compiled over the years through numerous interviews and emails with show producers (to 1999). Retrieved on 2009-07-14." Retrieved from where?
 * Cites to the soap itself should have episode number and transmission date details, but not a retrieved on date. I would still like to see this but it is not a specific GA criteria.
 * Titles of online cites should not be in block capitals Fixed those myself.
 * Sources are sufficiently reliable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Somewhat over detailed. WP:SUMMARY style is the guideline for encyclopaedia articles. Could still benefit from some pruning.
 * In fact I became rather confused by the fact that Todd was apparently executed in 2006, but was alive later?
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Ok, the main point is that the writing is poor, needs a thorough copy-edit throughout. Consider trimming and using WP:SUMMARY style. Some referencing issues to be addressed. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the article is sufficiently improved to merit GA status. I suggest that you consider further the points raised and take this to peer review, if you intend to go further with this article. Passing as GA status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the pass. Yes, I intend to do what I stated below. I need a few or several days, though, since lately I am often busy with work outside of Wikipedia. And, yeah, I hope to get a good copyeditor. I will take peer review into consideration. But soap opera articles usually don't get enough replies. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, the main point is that the writing is poor, needs a thorough copy-edit throughout. Consider trimming and using WP:SUMMARY style. Some referencing issues to be addressed. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the article is sufficiently improved to merit GA status. I suggest that you consider further the points raised and take this to peer review, if you intend to go further with this article. Passing as GA status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the pass. Yes, I intend to do what I stated below. I need a few or several days, though, since lately I am often busy with work outside of Wikipedia. And, yeah, I hope to get a good copyeditor. I will take peer review into consideration. But soap opera articles usually don't get enough replies. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the pass. Yes, I intend to do what I stated below. I need a few or several days, though, since lately I am often busy with work outside of Wikipedia. And, yeah, I hope to get a good copyeditor. I will take peer review into consideration. But soap opera articles usually don't get enough replies. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I will see what I can do and what help I can get. I was not even aware that another copyeditors league was up.

Regarding the change of tense matter, that is due to Wikipedia's writing guideline about using present tense for fiction when basically replaying a storyline. According to that guideline (such as WP:TENSE), past tense should be used for real-life life events only. This is why I describe what the writers did to Todd...in past tense...and what Todd is doing in any particular storyline...in present tense.
 * Well, it seems that you are mixing up plot with production notes. Best to keep them separate. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As for cites to the soap opera itself needing to have episode numbers, I do not have the episode numbers for the episodes. Instead, I have the dates the episodes aired for some of them, and included those. Keeping up with and finding out episode numbers for soap opera episodes is extremely difficult. There are many more soap opera episodes than episodes of prime time shows. With soap operas, every weekday usually airs a new episode. It is rare that a viewer would keep up with soap opera episodes numbers. And from what I have seen regarding stuff that has aired on television, referencing it to the television show is enough if you do not have the episode number or even the date (such as in a "witnessed on air" reference/note; for example, the fact that Todd was repeatedly called Boomer in 1998)...because the show is the source.
 * I had in mind using cite episode. You can get an episode list at IMDb so if you have the date you can cross-reference. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how you became confused by the fact that Todd was executed in 2006 (reading the Trevor St. John part of the Impact section), but was alive later. I feel that I explained that well enough. Is it that you feel I overly explained it? Either way, I will try to fix all of your concerns regarding this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, I missed the sentence about the revival in the execution chamber. Frankly the way plot and production detils are mixed up throughout makes it difficult to figure out what is going on. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have taken care of the prose for the parts you pointed out and that Marg Harris reference . If you are not satisfied with either of those changes, let me know. I know that other parts of the article still needs prose and grammar work, but I will try to spot those. Hopefully, I will get some help soon from one or both of the editors I requested help from.


 * I will use the cite episode template for the episode references. But you don't want that for the note references, such as Todd being called Boomer, as well, do you? I am not sure how easy cross-referencing with IMDb will be in this case. I will give it a try, but I cannot promise anything on that front. On the plot and production details bit, I do not see how having the plot and production details mixed up throughout makes it difficult to figure out what is going on. This is done with plenty of articles about fiction, including featured soap opera character article Pauline Fowler. It seems reasonable and rationale to add in plot details, in WP:TENSE form, along with how those scenes were crafted/designed. I usually lead in with how the scene, mood or whatever was created, and then explain what was going on in the storyline by giving a brief plot summary. Maybe it is the way I have a few parts worded that has confused you. But it generally works. It also stops repetition. It seems "off" to have a section about how certain scenes or whatever were designed/created, and then a section about plot only involving those same scenes...unless I had a Plot section. But that Plot section would need to be really long, and the only way I could have it really long without it violating WP:PLOT...would be to have it told in real-world perspective. And, really, real-world perspective is what I was going for in describing plot info in this article. That is why the production details are mixed up with the plot details. Flyer22 (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)