Wikipedia:Peer review/Chad Harris-Crane/archive1

Chad Harris-Crane

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for candidacy as a Featured article (FAC), but I would appreciate some feedback and comments. Thank you in advance, Aoba47 (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Good article. There are some things that bothered me so I'll add them here.

• The last paragraph from the lead feels quite big. Could you trim it a little?

• I eliminated the last sentence as it was out of place (since the last paragraph deals primary with the reception and the removed sentence discussed more of the production/background aspects). I believe the rest of the paragraph is necessary to adequately represent the "Reception and impact" section.
  • I did add the sentence again in a shorter form as I believe it should be addressed somewhere in the lead (otherwise a large portion of the article would not be represented at all in the lead, which is not good at all). I am not entirely sure what should be removed as I feel all of it is necessary to cover in the lead, so I would appreciate any suggestions.

• The infobox has the first and last appearance section has dates: If they refer to episodes, I would suggest adding the titles.

• This is an American soap opera so the episodes do not have broadcast titles.

• I'm pretty sure FA reviewers would like references for the storyline section.

• According to this, the storyline section does not require referencing. It would also be extremely difficult to do so as some sentences cover weeks, months, and (in some cases) years of daily, weekday episodes, which would make referencing them impossible.

Other than that, I can't think of anything else. Also, I requested a peer review here and I would appreciate responses. Cheers.

@Tintor2: Thank you for your comments! I greatly appreciate them, and have addressed them above. I will address your peer review as soon as possible (this week is a little crazy for me, so it will probably be closer to the end of the week when I have time add thorough comments if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Since Aoba47 responded to my peer review, I'll gladly repay the favor:

Lead

• Passions followed the romantic and supernatural adventures in the fictional New England coastal town of Harmony. Created by the soap's founder and head writer James E. Reilly, the role was portrayed by two actors over the course of the show: Donn Swaby (1999 to 2002) and Charles Divins (2002 to 2007). I don't like how the first sentence discusses the premise of the show, and then cuts to the character. "The role" in the second sentence is actually referring to the show, not the character. Why not just replace "the role" with Chad.

• Done.

• The character made daytime television and soap opera history as a participant in a scene of two men simulating sex. What was so special for it to make history? I'm assuming that it was the first time this occurred in a soap opera, but unless that is explicitly stated, the reader won't know why the scene is important.

• Done.

Development

• Sheraton Kalouria, senior vice president of NBC's daytime programming,[1] described the show's use of color-blind casting as part of an effort to build a diverse pool of characters that best reflected the various ethnic and racial groups living in the United State. Missing an s at the end of United States.

• Done.

• Even though Chad was not introduced as a direct member of the Russells, media outlet closely associated him with the family since he was the "object of affection [of] both Simone and Whitney". "Even though" sounds a little informal, try "although"

• Done.

• He said he was surprised by the real that Chad's affair was with a man, but thought the soap opera's "storytelling style lends itself to dramatic changes". Is "real" supposed to mean something? I'm a bit confused over that sentence.

• Done. I meant to say "reveal".

Storylines

• Mostly good, though are exact dates necessary? For example, On March 23, 2005, she gives birth to a son and immediately uses her then-boyfriend Fox Crane's power of attorney to put him up for adoption, does the reader really need to know the exact day the baby was born? Why not just generalize

• Done. I kept the dates for the first and last episodes the character appeared in, but removed the other references.

Reception and impact

• Jamey Giddens of Daytime Confidential opined that Chad and Vincent's relationship should have received more media attention in comparison to Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer from the CBS soap opera As the World Turns, and Oliver Fish and Kyle Lewis from the ABC soap opera One Life to Live. Link Daytime Confidential

• Done.

• Following James E. Reilly's death on October 12, 2008, Gawker's Kyle Buchanan praised the "insanely convoluted incest storylines" involving Chad and Vincent as one of "the most insane things that have ever happened on television". It's not important to say that the article was the result of Reilly's death, as the quote has nothing to do with him.

• Done.

• Newcomb claimed that Vincent's reveal as intersex leads to Chad's heterosexuality being "rescued" as he "was sleeping only with Vincent's female anatomy". This caught me off guard, so I decided to read Vincent's article and found out that Vincent has a split personality. This is never mentioned in this article, and the reader is left to assume that Vincent is either transsexual, or something else. This needs to be explained, preferably in the Storylines section.

• Done. Sorry for the mistake. I have attempted to add a sentence about this in the "Storylines" section, but let me know if this is clear or not as it is a little difficult to make this part clear.

Better now, thanks

• I just noticed this, but I'm not a fan of how this section is organized. Paragraph two is more or less about Chad's character receiving praise, and then paragraph three was about the discussions over his true sexuality. It's not until paragraph four that we read any negative feedback about Chad's character. I think that paragraphs three and four should be switched.

• Done. I agree with your point completely.

Overall, a very well written article. Granted, I don't know a whole lot about soaps, but the overall article was easy to read and understandable, with a few issues here and there. Hopefully this was a sufficient review, and if you do decide to take this article to FAC, I'll gladly participate in the discussion (and most likely support). Famous Hobo (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: Thank you for your review, especially since this is outside of your interests. Your review was extremely helpful, and I have addressed all of your comments. Feel free to contact me if you need any help with articles. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

One thing just occurred to me after reading Todd Manning's article. Was there any given explanation in the show as for why Chad suddenly looked different following the recasting? Or did the show just try to brush the recasting under the carpet and play it off like nothing happened to him? If it's the latter, then disregard my comment, but if there was an explanation, you might want to include it in the storylines section. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2016‎ (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: That is a very good question. They never explained why Chad suddenly looked different and the show played it off like nothing happened to him. This happened for two reasons: 1) Passions is more of a parody of a soap opera than a traditional version so it was never trying to be realistic in any sense of the word and 2) several of the characters went through re-castings over the course of the show (for instance the character of Simone Russell was recasted twice without any in-show explanation) so I think at that point the writers/producers probably just gave up and went with the flow. Hope this makes some sense. Aoba47 (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comments by Flyer22 Reborn: I'm weighing in per Aoba47's request. This is a very fine article. I made this and this edit, but I'm not seeing problems with the current article, perhaps because cleanup happened before I arrived to look it over. The lead summarizes the article well, the Development section is comprehensive, the Storyline section adheres to MOS:PLOT, and the Reception and impact section delivers the various views on the matter in a succinct way with just enough detail. Very nice job on this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and good use of the image in the Reception and impact section, which is there to aid critical commentary. From what I see, it passes WP:Fair use. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Thank you for your comments and your edits! Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)