This article is about a fictional character on the American soap operaPassions, which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. The character made daytime television and soap opera history for participating in the first instance in a soap opera of two men simulating sex, and has also been cited as expanding the representation of LGBT characters of color on daytime television. I have worked on this article a lot over the past year, and I believe that it is comprehensive and covers all the aspects of the FA criteria. The article has gone through the GAN and Peer Review process I would love to have this article reach the level of a FA to attract more attention for improving articles on this soap opera and LGBT characters of color. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The article looks in pretty good shape but I'll leave some things.
For now the lead
"which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. Passions followed the romantic and supernatural adventures in the fictional New England coastal town of Harmony" seems unnecessary for the character. Can you replace it with something about his creation?
Agreed, removed this from the lead. The link is there for anyone interested in learning more about the show. I am not sure what to add to the lead about the creation of the character, but I am open to suggestions.
"Divins discussed the storyline with his gay friends and researched LGBT culture to better shape his performance. Media outlets were uncertain of the exact nature of Chad's sexual orientation, debating if he was straight, gay, or bisexual." Seems rather redundant. I mean, is there another one?
True, revised this by removing the redundant phrasing.
Now moving to Development
It kind of feels like there too many quotes.
Agree. Removed some quotes, but let me know if more should be removed.
Can the storylines use some references?
As I stated in the Peer Review, the storyline section does not require referencing according to this. It would also be extremely difficult or impossible to include references for that section as some sentences cover weeks, months, and (in some cases) years of daily, weekday episodes.
I don't find any notable issues with the reception.
Other than I'm satisfied with the article. By the way, I also nominated Allen Walkerhere. I would appreciate feedback even if he doesn't pass.
@Tintor2: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them. Please let me know if there is anything else I can clarify or revise with the article. I will provide a review for your FAC for Allen Walker sometime in the beginning of next week if that is alright with you. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Great, I support it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tintor2: Thank you very much for your comments again. You helped me catch a few really really silly mistakes lol. I will make sure to review your FAC in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
File:Chad Harris-Crane.jpg: Non-free image, which seems correct as it's a character from a copyrighted TV show. Source information is a bit vague, the scope of illustrating the subject of the article seems legit under WP:NFCI. I'd say it meets the WP:NFC criteria but it needs more source information.
Information has been updated. I did not upload the image, but I am very certain that it is a portion of a screenshot from an episode (and given the nature of the show, it would be extremely difficult to identify the episode it was taken from). Let me know if this needs to be updated further.
File:ChadVincentSex.jpg: Non-free image, which seems correct as they are characters from a copyrighted TV show. The non-free use rationale is much more detailed than in the infobox image. I have some doubts that illustrating a homosexual relationship in the show needs a non-free image, though (WP:NFCC#8) - was this scene explicitly discussed? Also, the article does indicate "mixed reviews" not "generally negative" ones as claimed in the caption.
Replaced "generally negative" with "mixed". I forgot to change this during the article's expansion. I felt the image was necessary since the article discusses how the character "made daytime history by being the first to represent two men simulating sex", and there was criticism about the sequences of sexual intercourse between the two characters being too graphic. I completely understand if you believe it should be removed and will do so. I admittedly need to learn more about the usage of non-free images on here, so I would greatly appreciate your input.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the image review. I have responded to your comments above. I believe that I updated all of the source information for the lead image, but please let me know if this requires further clarification or expansion. I have clarified my intention for using the second image, but I could always remove it (I completely understand your point, and I understand the use of non-free images should be kept to a minimal). Also, the lead image already has an ALT text, but I can update it if you believe it is insufficient. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Going solely by WP:NFCC#8 using a shot of one of the complained-about sexual intercourse scenes seems like it would satisfy the NFC policy better, if text discussing these complained-about scenes is present in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the clarification. I do need to learn more about the NFC policy. The comments about the criticism are at the end of the final paragraph of the "Reception" section. Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I have also updated the caption. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I generally do not explicitly say "passed" or "failed" when reviewing FAC images. However, you can read this as a) the first image is OK and b) the second one probably isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the reply. So just to be absolutely clear, do you think it would be best to remove the second image? I understand your point of view, and was thinking about doing so from your comments, but again, I just want to be clear. I apologize for the trouble. Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I think it should be removed, unless consensus decides that it is OK to keep it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, it has been removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Aoba47 and Jo-Jo Eumerus, I just saw that File:ChadVincentSex.jpg was deleted (the image was on my watchlist). From my review of the article (seen in the peer review), I found the image to pass the WP:Non-free guideline because of number 5 at WP:Non-free content#Images and WP:NFCC#8. As noted above, the image was used to aid critical commentary about the characters' sexual relationship. Above, Aoba47 stated, "I felt the image was necessary since the article discusses how the character 'made daytime history by being the first to represent two men simulating sex', and there was criticism about the sequences of sexual intercourse between the two characters being too graphic." Those are solid reasons to maintain the image. One could, however, argue that the image isn't needed since readers can easily picture the two in bed together. Still, I think the image enhanced the article, especially since a picture is worth a thousand words. Keeping the image would be similar to keeping the Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer kiss image, which had a deletion debate. But if you both would rather that the "in bed together" image remain removed, I'm not going to drag out the debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: and @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I actually agree with you, and felt that the image was very important to visualize as I pointed out above how the sequence made daytime history and became a subject of criticism. However, I was hesitant as I am not as familiar as I should be with Wikipedia's policy on non-free content. I would love to upload the image again and add it in if that is a possibility. Thank you for your message, Flyer22 Reborn. Aoba47 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────┘ That image is indeed very marginal. Myself, I am not convinced that two men looking at each other in bed in an apparently sexual situation requires a non-free image to illustrate, but my opinion is not more important than yours. With a good fair use rationale, that image could be restored. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: and @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you again for both of your comments. I greatly appreciate your input, and have put a lot of thought into my decision after weighing both of your arguments. I agree with want to be careful with Jo-Jo Eumerus in that I want to be really careful with using non-free images so I will keep the article as it currently stands as the information is already present though the text. I apologize for being indecisive and going back and forth on this issue, but I am happy with the article as it currently stands. Thank you again to both of you, and I apologize to both of you for any inconvenience. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just so you know I replaced the previous image in the infobox with a promotional image from NBC Universal Photo that I found on TV Guide. That way, I knew exactly where the source of the image. I am included a detailed summary for the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" as well. I based that around those used for images from featured articles on fictional characters. I just wanted to let you know about the update, and thank you again for the above review! Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Seems like my comments on the prior image would apply here as well, save for the better source information of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Support – I can see no reason to oppose this candidacy. There's nothing really to nitpick over that hasn't been addressed at this point for me. The article is in fantastic shape. The prose is tight and clean, sourcing is good, and it is comprehensive in scope, a most interesting read. Well done and keep up the great work! DAP💅 17:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@DAP388: Thank you for your comment! Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Source review - all OK
No DAB-links - OK.
No dead links - OK.
Thorough consistent sourcing - OK. AGF on plot information.
Reliable sources - obviously not Oxford University Press :), but reliable enough for a soap opera-related article (mostly TV sites, tabloids, specialist blogs).
If only I could find articles or books from the Oxford University Press about this character or soap opera lol.
I have fixed 2 broken archives, did some other minor tweaks, and removed a few overly detailed personal comments. Of course some relevant personal background details are useful, but the bulk of the article's information should be based on independent sources - not on actors talking about themselves. GermanJoe (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@GermanJoe: Thank you for your review and your revisions. Your revisions have helped to improve the article a great deal, and I always appreciate your input. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll add comments as I go through the article. I'm making some minor copyedits; please revert if I screw anything up.
Any reason not to name the actor in the caption to the infobox picture?
I was originally using the article Pauline Fowler as a template (since they are both soap opera characters), but I have added the name of the actor to the caption, as I agree that it is important to clarify the actor in the photo for the reader (especially since two actors played the role).
"Although Chad was not introduced as a direct member of the Russells, media outlets closely associated him with the family": I'm not sure what you mean by "closely associated". The source just lists the Russells and then mentions Harris.
This was something I added in the beginning stages of the expansion for the article. I added it to connect the previous sentences about the color-blind casting and the racially diverse families to the specific character (kind of like a transition moving from the general to the specific). However, I do agree that it sounds off, and I have moved the information about Chad's initial role as the "object of affection for Simone and Whitney" to the "Characterization and cast response" section as it is more appropriate there, and cut out the rest as I agree that the "closely associated" part was a stretch and not in the source. Please let me know if these revisions are okay, and if further revisions are necessary. Also, let me know if you think that the information about the color-blind casting is appropriate for this article. I think it fits, but just want to double-check.
That works; and yes, I think it's fine to mention the color-blind casting -- very relevant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
"Swaby expressed disapproval of the direction of the character's storyline when played by Divins": there's no implication in the source that Swaby's disapproval is related to Divins himself, so I'd suggest making this "After Swaby left the show, he was disappointed by the direction Chad's storyline took ".
Agreed, used the revision that you suggested. Thank you!
'He added that the focus was kept on "[t]he underlying drama of what's going on is Chad's denial and coping with [his identity]"': this isn't grammatical; I see what you're trying to do, but the part outside the quote is expecting a noun phrase and you have a full sentence in the quote. How about: "Divins felt that the key element of the storyline was Chad's difficulty in coming to terms with his sexuality?" I'm not sure we need the direct quote here.
Also agreed with this. I apologize for the sloppy use of the quote, and I have used the revision that you have suggested. Thank you!
"He stated the development of the character reflected the increasing visibility of LGBT issues on television and in everyday society": I don't see this in the given source.
I have revised this sentence so hopefully it makes more sense. In the source, Divins is asking if he had any "fears going into the storyline", to which he responded "No. I mean, there's always concern, but it's 2007. It's a lot more visible on TV and in society", so that is where the whole idea of the increased visibility came from in the sentence. Let me know if this needs further revisions. Thank you for catching this.
@Mike Christie: Thank you for your comments so far. I have addressed them to the best of my ability. I look forward to the rest of your review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I did a little copyediting to the last paragraph in the characterization section, but I'm not sure you're really reflecting the source correctly for the sentence about Brook Kerr. In the source, Kerr says "He was my first true love -- he gave me my independence", but she's clearly speaking to the interviewer in Whitney's voice, not speaking as Kerr. I'm also not sure you can say it's her scenes with Chad that allow her to act the character in new ways; it's the whole storyline, and it sounds as though some of that is with Chad offscreen (e.g. the nunnery, the monk). You can definitely say that Kerry enjoyed the storyline, but that's not all that relevant to Chad. Do you think this is worth including? Similarly, all that Jeanmarie says in the given source is "It's good to know we were even a part of history, you know? Maybe what we did on Passions made it easier for the soaps to do what they are doing today?" I think this is a bit more usable, but I think your paraphrase takes it a bit beyond what the source will support. Jeanmarie is glad to have been part of history, but in context that might just mean the fact that it was the first such scene in a soap. The comment by Ross is more definite. Maybe this whole paragraph could be shortened to something like "Chad's character and storyline were not to every cast member's taste; Tracey Ross, who played Eve Russell, later said she "was never crazy about" the incest plot, though Phillip Jeanmarie, who played Vincent Clarkson, commented that he was glad to have been part of the taboo-breaking story." I think "taboo-breaking" is probably not ideal, but that's the general idea.
Changed to your suggestion and combined with the previous paragraph. I am okay with the term "taboo-breaking", as I cannot think of another term to replace it.
Linked Tracey Ross, Eve Russell, and Phillip Jeanmarie. Vincent Clarkson was already linked earlier in the section. Thank you for the reminder and I apologize for missing this before. Aoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, I changed "plays" to "played" in the suggested rewrite above -- I think since the show is over, anything about the actors and roles (rather than in-world present tense) should be in the past tense.
I think all of the "Development" section is already in past tense.
"after the discovery of his marriage to Latoya Harris": shouldn't we have heard about this earlier in the storylines section?
I am not sure what you mean by this. I made the sentence about this storyline as concise as possibly, as I did not believe it was that important to the reader, in comparison to the other parts of the section. It needs to be mentioned in the "Storylines" section, but it was rather short storyline so I am not sure any expansion of this would be helpful.
I meant that a character's marriage seems like the sort of thing that would be major enough to be mentioned in the storyline section. Was it a secret marriage, since you say "the discovery of his marriage" at one point? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean, I apologize for misunderstanding you. It was presented as a secret marriage (it was only revealed to the viewer at that time). The marriage occupies an odd space in the character's storyline. It is important (as I assume an marriage would be to a character) and it does take up a majority of the character's storyline for the year 2003, but after that, it is never brought up again and seems to have been dismissed. It was also never discussed before that either or even implied. I have moved the introduction to Latoya to the beginning of the first paragraph in between the first two sentences so that it doesn't come off as a surprise to the reader. Let me if this is an improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
"The possible incestuous implications of Chad's relationship with Whitney serves as one of his primary storylines on the soap opera": suggest "From this point on, the apparently incestuous relationship between Chad and Whitney became one of the primary storylines on Passions."
"who would later be known as Miles Harris-Crane" -- I'd suggest cutting this and mentioning it later in the paragraph at the point in the storyline when the name is given.
Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
OK -- how about changing the end of that paragraph to "they decide to raise their son together, and rename him Miles Harris Crane"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, and I apologize for the inconvenience. Aoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
If the first sentence of each paragraph expresses the theme, then the third paragraph should be about the sexual relationship and the fourth should be about criticism of it as irresponsible or poorly written, but the last two sentences of the fourth paragraph are praise.
I included these sentences in this paragraph as I believed that it tied back into the idea of the storyline being irresponsibly done (viewers complaining that the explicit sex sequences should not be shown on daytime television). Where would you suggest moving it if it does not fit here? I would think that it is important to keep this idea somewhere in the article as the viewer reaction should be kept since I have a source for it.
I have moved it to try and make it flow better. Let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you can cut the first three "See also" links; they're all linked from the navbox.
Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Oops, I thought I only cut the first three, but I must have cut the entire section by accident. Aoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
-- Overall I don't think this is quite there yet. Once you've responded I'll go back through and have a closer look at the sources -- I can see where you were getting some of the material I mentioned above, but it was a bit imprecise and I'd like to just check a few more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Thank you for your response. I have responded to your comments above. Hopefully, I can make this work out as I have put a lot of time and energy into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the reception section again, probably tonight. Meanwhile, I see the entire storyline section is uncited; I assume that's because the source is the show itself. Nikki, what's the convention for showing sourcing on something like this? Should each paragraph have a source that points at the show, or is it OK to just leave the paragraphs uncited and assume the reader will understand what the real source is? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is MOS:PLOT: sourcing is generally encouraged but not required, we need sources for direct quotes, any interpretation requires secondary sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Thank you for your review. I have addressed the comments above, and thank you for helping me with the "Reception" section. To the best of my knowledge, the "Storylines" section does not need a citation as the show serves as the primary source.The article for Todd Manning does not use any sources for its "Storylines" section, and I believe that it is a part of the Wikiproject for soap operas that these sections are traditionally uncited (given the difficulty in doing so) according to thisAoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Looking through the reception section:
Why do we need the quote from Fearn-Banks? It essentially just says that Chad is biracial, which we already know, don't we?
The Fearn-Banks' quote is much more complicated than that, as she is discussing how Chad fits within a larger representation of biracial characters on television. However, I have removed it if you feel that it is unnecessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the first paragraph doesn't really have a focus -- there's the "sensational" comment, a note about biracial characters on TV, a compliment for Divins, and a comment about the reveal.
I wanted the first paragraph to focus on the reception of the character's relationship with Whitney, and the storyline of the two of them as a couple. I wanted to use the first sentence as the topic sentence to unify it together. I believe that the removal of the Fearn-Banks will hopefully make this stronger, and I have edited this a little bit as well. Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The second paragraph is better; it's focused on the question of Chad's sexuality. I don't think the outlets were expressing "confusion", though; they expressed differing opinions, but none seem confused.
Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
'Soap opera journalist Roger Newcomb of We Love Soaps included Chad in his review of gay, lesbian, and bisexual characters in the history of daytime television, but questioned the character's self-identification. Newcomb said that Vincent's reveal as intersex leads to Chad's heterosexuality being "rescued" as he "was sleeping only with Vincent's female anatomy".' I'd cut this to 'Soap opera journalist Roger Newcomb of We Love Soaps questioned whether Chad was truly gay, arguing that Vincent's reveal as intersex leads to Chad's heterosexuality being "rescued" as he "was sleeping only with Vincent's female anatomy".' I think mentioning the "History of Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Television Characters" would be worth it if it were a substantial piece, but it's barely more than a simple list.
Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd cut the last sentence (McHale's "transsexuals" comment) from the end of the second paragraph; quoting it directly seems a bit too detailed, given this is not cited to another source that mentions it, only to the show itself.
Rather than detail my concerns with the third paragraph, here's a suggested rewrite, splitting it into two. I've cut and spliced a bit, and done some rewording. Let me know what you think. Do we need the website attributions for these writers inline, or can some be left for the reader to see in the notes? They really slow down the reader, but I know in some cases it's the website that's notable, not the writer, so perhaps some or all should stay.
Passions made daytime history by being the first to depict two men having sex, but the pairing of Chad and Vincent drew less media attention than the gay relationships in As the World Turns and One Life to Live. The complicated incest storyline was described as "insanely convoluted" by Gawker's Kyle Buchanan, who felt it was one of "the most insane things that have ever happened on television"; the plotline was also praised, by Soaps.com, as reflecting the show's "unique perspective and zest for controversy" while challenging the "often too safe and predictable world of soaps". NewNowNext.com's Brent Hartinger approved of the plotline for increasing the presence of LGBT people of color on daytime television, with Ross von Metze of Edge Media Network commenting that the show was "taking risks where other TV shows have failed".
Viewers were divided over the sexually explicit sequences between Chad and Vincent. Some felt the scenes between Chad and Vincent were "appalling" and inappropriate for daytime television, while one viewer praised the soap opera for "continu[ing] their outstanding jobs as they teach the people of today's world about daily life experiences". Soaps.com defended the show by pointing out that graphic sex scenes between men and women were previously aired without complaint.
@Mike Christie: Thank you again for your help! I apologize for the added work and inconvenience. I have addressed the comments above. Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll follow up tomorrow, but I took out all the sources, links, and formatting while I was working on the third paragraph -- sorry about that! Can you readd as needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
No worries, that is an easy fix, especially with consideration to how much you have helped me with this. I have attempted to c/e the fourth paragraph to help with this, but feel free to revert it if you find that I made it worse. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: I have readded the links. I apologize for being a pain with this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Status: Laser brain, Ian Rose: I'm going to work on this tonight if I have time, but probably won't be able to do much for a day or so after that -- I'm having minor surgery, and though I'll be physically fit after it I may be on drugs that won't make me a very good editor. As it stands I would oppose promotion if you want me to declare, but I think it's not that far away. If this can stay open a few more days I think it'll make it across the line. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Thank you for your review, and I hope everything goes well with your surgery. I am still trying to learn how to a better contributor on here, so I greatly appreciate your input and apologize for my mistakes. Aoba47 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Just getting back to this now. (No need to apologize all the time, by the way, Aoba47; it's very polite of you, and I appreciate it, but reviewing is all about finding problems and agreeing how to fix them. If every mistake required an apology we'd never do anything else but say sorry! We both want to improve the article, so it's a collaboration, not a conflict.)
Re the fourth paragraph:
"Chad's relationship with Vincent has been widely criticized by television critics, who believed it was irresponsibly represented": has it really been "widely" criticized? You have three cites for this; I don't think that's enough, particularly since they're just passing mentions.
The article by Herndon Davis is about diversity in general; the relevant line in the source is: "In 2005, NBC's Passions introduced Simone Russell as daytime's first African-American lesbian. But unfortunately the same soap recklessly wrote a down-low storyline which involved an African-American man but eventually turned it into an outrageous intersex serial killer storyline." It's not entirely clear what Davis means -- it was originally a reckless storyline and then became an outrageous one? Why "but"? You characterize this as "viewed negatively", which is certainly fair, but Davis's essay is about diversity, not really about this show. I think it would be better to make the context of Davis's comments clear.
How about this rewrite of the paragraph:
Chad's relationship with Vincent received some criticism, with Windy City Times describing the storyline as "reckless" and "outrageous". According to Slate's Ta-Nehisi Coates, the storyline was also disliked by the show's black audience. Mike Perigard of the Boston Herald was critical of the timing of the death of lesbian Rae Thomas following the reveal of Chad's affair with a man; Perigard argued that Thomas's character was removed to reduce the number of gay characters on the show.
I'll have another read through, tonight or tomorrow, and see if there's anything else, but I think this is close now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: I agree with your above comments on the fourth paragraph. I have used your rewrite of the paragraph as it makes the ideas more coherent and clearer to the reader. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I see you cut all of the material cited to Fearn-Banks; my question was just about the quote, which didn't seem important to me -- do you see a reason for it? Her comment about biracial characters on TV often ending up in traumatic situations seems quite apposite though, assuming she specifically mentions Chad.
I originally put the quote during the early development of the page, in which I used any reliable source that I could find regarding the character. Fearn-Banks does specifically reference Chad in the section about "Biracial Characters" from her book, and I thought it might be useful to add more information on how Chad's relationship with Whitney was received by critics. I have removed it as if it is not viewed/determined as important, than it is probably best to remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
"According to the blog "Out in Hollywood", which is affiliated with the Los Angeles Daily News": I assume you put this in to make it clear that it's a reliable source. I don't think the reader needs to see this inline, though; I'd move this to a note.
Good idea. Done. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
What do we get from the reported statement that Divins noted "the characters and their relationship [are] important aspects of the show"? It's a fairly anodyne thing to say; there are no specifics. The next sentence -- "Divins identified Chad's confusion over his sexual orientation as a vital part of the storyline" is more definite; how about cutting the first source and just using that? I.e. the paragraph would start "Despite the controversy, and negative reception of Chad's sexual encounters with Vincent, Divins considered Chad's confusion over his sexual orientation to be a vital part of the storyline."?
Agreed, done as suggested. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
"Hartinger called Chad a "closeted bisexual", and Nahmod referred to him as a gay black man": I don't know these media outlets, so I'll defer to your judgement here -- would a soap opera fan be more likely to recognize the name as "Hartinger", or "Brent Hartinger", or would they be more likely to recognize the website, NewNowNext.com? Same question for David Nahman/Bay Area Reporter.
The outlets/website would be more recognizable so I have revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Same again for "Lesleyann Coker of Soapdom.com" -- not knowing these writers, I'd be inclined to just use the website names, but if you think these are well known to soap fans, can we just have her name? I'd use first and last, not just last, though, unless she's truly famous in the field, and even then her full name should be used on first occurrence.
Agreed and revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I missed this first time: why "not dead" in the Soup appearance? Was this before the character died on the show?
Divins appeared on the show following his exit (the death of his character). Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)