Talk:Martha Logan

Grammar oddity

"Jean Smart is the only actress on 24 besides Kiefer Sutherland to be nominated for more than one Emmy for her performance."

Clunky, because it reads as if we're calling Kiefer an "actress".

For now I've replaced with "Jean Smart is the only actress/actor on 24 besides Kiefer Sutherland..." but that seems lacking.

If anyone has a better alternative, I'd welcome it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.6.129 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC) -- Cast member, maybe? --154.20.3.248 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me.

Motive for knife in Charles

I did not get the impression that she intended to kill Charles, she herself seemed distressed over what she had done. I believe she merely wanted to hurt him. - BlackWidower 04:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Season 6 Picture

added a picture from season 6 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SignorSimon (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Merger proposal

Yet another completely unnecessary merger. Martha Logan was one of THE most important characters in Day 5 (the most watched season), is played by a notable actress and had a significant impact on the show. Jean Smart was nominated for an Emmy for her portrayal of this character. Keep-Phoenixfan 16:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge no prior notability and little ongoing notability due to her staus as living with aaron peirce in Day 6.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Major character and the actress was nominated for an Emmy for the role. Lucy, maybe you should look up the word 'minor' in the dictionary. A lot of the mergers you've been suggesting (such as the Mike Novick one) are unwarrented. MoChan (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The word minor is an ambiguous word and you and I clearly give it different meanings.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

KEEP for the reasons stated above. And Lucy, no one really cares what how you define "minor." In your mind every character on the show is "minor." --MiB-24 (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask how many users have read WP:FICT? --Lucy-marie (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep for the reasons stated above and to make it very clear, she was nominated for an Emmy for her role, that is notable, as Martha was a main character whose role was supporting another main character. Yes, I have read WP:FICT, and she clearly falls within its boundaries.Lan Di (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Lucy-marie. I've had it with you and your ceaseless attempts to merge all these pages. I'm pulling your tag, and if need be, I'll call in an admin to help sort it out. Angelriver (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on content and not the user and please not that this is NOT JUST A VOTE,--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there is something called consensus, and consensus is against you. You've merged pages against consensus such as Chase Edmunds, George Mason, and Curtis Manning. It is also against rules to do things without consensus also.Lan Di (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is against on some and for on other. Without the process consensus cannot be established. Also false consensus must be avoided where loads of "emotional" arguments are made. The arguments must be based on polices and guidelines such as WP:FICT, WP:NOTABLE, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. Please note it is not against the rules to do things without consensus it is mealy generally accepted as good etiquette please see WP:IGNORE and WP:BOLD.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Then how come your tags always get pulled by the admins when you fail to garner support for your mergers? Angelriver (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The tags don't always get pulled. The central arguments get lost and the discussions lose their focus.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ALL of your tags have been pulled by the admins....at least all the ones for the 24 characters. And you know it. Angelriver (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

comment that is a false statement some pages such as Mike Doyle are still tagged.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, do you remember when you tried to merge every single character except for Jack? You lost and your merger tags were removed by an admin. Quit trying to pretend it didn’t happen. We know your tricks and aren’t going to let you get away with destroying these pages. --MiB-24 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced information.

I've removed this detail from the article "She met Charles Logan while he was serving in the California State Legislature." I couldn't find any references to verify that, so I've moved it to the talk page. If this can be referenced, either from the 24 TV show, or from somewhere else, feel free to re-add it, and source it. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 04:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary.

I've looked through the plot summary for Day 5 and 6. Day 6 is OK, but needs fixing. Day 5 is abysmal, and as such, I've scrapped it from the article. It's below, but I have reasons for scrapping it. I'll work on having it rewritten as soon as possible. If you feel you can contribute, please do so. The plot summary needs to be concise, and balanced well. At the moment, it's unbalanced. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 10:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Decided it's best to leave it there, it can be rewritten. But thinking about it, I'm reluctant to have it removed completely. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 12:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Day 5 Plot Summary

I've tagged this section as needing a re-write. It's poorly balanced, as in, there is too little emphasis on certain earlier events, and too much emphasis on later events. Also, the 2 leading sentences are completely incorrect, I'll do my best to improve the section, I could use help though. Remember, be concise. This article is currently a B class, let's try improving it to a GA. You can ask me for more help if necessary. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 12:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Article review

• write a three paragraph lead; first saying who she is, what show she is from and what seasons, what actress portrays here. the second is a short description of her role in the seasons she is a part of. The third paragraph summarizes critical reaction and any awards the actress won for the role.
• Concept and creation section needs expanding.
• Characterization section needs to be deleted except for the last sentence; all fictional biography stuff should be incorporated into the appearances section. It should be filled up with information on how the character is portrayed by the actress.
• reception section should be expanded. There have to be more reviews of 24 and her performance; IGN usually does episode reviews. Is she slated to appear in season 7, or was she?
• Replace the image you have with a scene she was in that was highly praised, her best moment or something like that.
• Use a featured article for comparison, as that is how I did this review; Jack Sparrow is featured, use that one.

Let me know how it goes! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I also just looked this over at Steve Crossin's request, and have a few comments (both in response to the above and about the article proper):

• According to MOS:LEAD, the lead section should be proportional to the article. A three-paragraph lead would be way too long for an article of this length. However, you still should try to include some more information there, as it is a bit short. Include a short bit on her appearances and the critical reaction as noted above.
• Concept and creation section looks good now, well done.
• Expand or merge the Characterization section into other sections. With it that short, it seems as though you would easily graft it into appearances unless there's more info to be added.
• You've met GA Criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 easily.
• "She was once the most trusted advisor for the indecisive politician." is unclear. Who are you referring to? (Characterization section)
• The article seems a bit short (this is my issue with Criteria 3, broadness). You seem to have covered most of the important bases, but there's not a whole lot of information in each. Some of the sections also cover information that would be better places elsewhere (as previously noted, in addition to mentioning Smart's Emmys in "Concept and creation", it seems that would be better elsewhere or at least belongs in a subsection). Try working on how the article is laid out, and as Judgesurreal suggested, definitely use other articles as templates.

All in all, it looks pretty good, and would probably either pass or be an easily fixed-up "on hold" if nominated for GA now. Well done, just consider taking a look at those to guarantee things. Best of luck! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

3rd sentence

Can somebody take a look at this? She wasn't married to the first lady was she? Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article.

Passes the GAC criteria beautifully; won't even bother posting the entire criteria. 100% pass, good work. Just a few suggestions:

• I don't think this needs to be included: "Prior to her role as Martha Logan, Smart was best known for her role on the Designing Women series, as Charlene Frazier-Stillfield. She had won two Emmys: one for a guest appearance on Frasier and another for a recurring part on The District." The article is about the character, not the actress. Having a bit about both can be confusing.
• "She was once the most trusted adviser for the indecisive politician." Which indecisive politician (Charles Logan, I presume?)? It should be mentioned, as it's a new section; Charles Logan hasn't been mentioned since the first sentence.
• "Several hours later, Martha is frustrated to see her husband negotiating with terrorist Vladimir Bierko and his willingness to compromise Yuri Suvarov and his wife's safety. Aaron Pierce eventually saves her from the ambush." Is frustrated the best word in the first sentence? What ambush does the second sentence refer to (change to "an ambush" if you don't want to clarify/be specific)?
• "Their marriage has been described as "one of the highlights of this year." Unclear.
  

Once more, kudos. And here's the icon: · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. However, I'm uncertain as to how I could clarify "Their marriage has been described as "one of the highlights of this year.. All the other changes have been made. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 21:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of content in the lead section.

Please note, the lead section is not spolier material, nor is it the plot. It is a summary of the article, as per the guideline for lead sectios, they should be a summary of the article. The lead section also summarises the concept and creation sections, and also, the plot section. Therefore, the current lead is appropriate, and as a good article, the lead section meets the required guidelines. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 09:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And specifically from WP:SPOILER

“ It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, Wikipedia:Lead section). ”

That page also says:

“ Wikipedia [has] section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which clearly indicate the presence of spoilers. ”

The lead works fine without the second paragraph and that allows all spoilers to be kept under section headings. AaronSw (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain point by point why you think certain lead items constitute spoilers, and why you think that consideration should override standard good article lead section requirements. If your objections are that strong, the appropriate solution would be to implement changes that preserve the basic length and depth of the lead section; to do otherwise would endanger the page's GA status--which took quite a bit of work to achieve. Durova^Charge! 16:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Season 7

She was committed to a mental hospital in the season 6, while Aaron Pierce was romantically involved with her, thus most probably ruining their relationship. I think its fair to say thats what President Taylor was refering to since it happened in the previous season. It's further enforced when Aaron Pierce says "I don't want to talk about it", because he likely blamed himself for what happened as he agreed to circumstances. I'm removing the mention until there is significant proof that she has been injured or killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoak (talk • contribs) 05:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martha Logan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607135026/http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/tvblog/entries/2007/03/13/24_still_shocks_spoiler_alert.html?cxntfid=blogs_tv_blog to http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/tvblog/entries/2007/03/13/24_still_shocks_spoiler_alert.html?cxntfid=blogs_tv_blog

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)